HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/12/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 3, 2012
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Discuss SWLRT DEIS Comments
Written Reports
2. Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Former Eliot School Site
7:30 p.m. Adjourn
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012
3c. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 13, 2012
3d. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 19, 2012
3e. City Council Meeting Minutes November 19, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove
items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Recommended Action:
• Information will be presented at the meeting pertaining to the 2013 property tax
supported budgets, 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, other general tax and
budgetary information.
• After the presentation, Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, solicit comments
and close the public hearing. There is no other formal action required at this meeting.
6b. First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South, North of
Morningside Road
Recommended Action: Mayor is asked to open public hearing, take comments, and then
close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading Adopting Ordinance vacating the
Natchez Avenue South right-of-way extending 500 feet north of Morningside Road, and
to set the second reading for December 17, 2012.
Meeting of December 3, 2012
City Council Agenda
6c. Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Recommended Action: Mayor to open Public Hearing, take comments, and then close
Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) decision to deny Sara and Henry Stokman’s application for a variance from the
side yard setback to allow an addition to the house with a 10 inch side yard setback
instead of the required five foot side yard setback.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 32 of the City Code
establishing a water access charge (WAC), and to set the second reading for December
17, 2012.
8b. Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
amending the Outdoor Lighting regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and approve the
summary ordinance for publication.
8c. Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Recommended Action: Grant Municipal Consent (approve the project) - Motion to
Adopt Resolution granting Municipal Consent for the Highway 100 Reconstruction
Project and approving MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D for S.P. 2734-33
8d. Project Report: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report,
establishing Improvement Project No. 2012-0100, approving plans and specifications,
and authorizing advertisement for bids for these improvements.
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 December 3, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 7405 Edgebrook Drive, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0068
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 3253 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0021
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 1624 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 05-117-21-43-0078
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,243.55 and accepting work
for Fire Station No. 1 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) with Omann Brothers Paving, Inc.
for Project No. 2008-3001, City Contract No. 84-11
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,237.83 and accepting work
for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) with T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. for
Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 53-11
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,156.50 and accepting work
for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) with Twin City Tile & Marble
Company for Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 55-11
4g. Appoint attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes as
hearing officers for the administrative penalties program
4h. Adopt Resolution approving an easement for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) to construct and maintain the Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
(Creek Remeander Project)
4i. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
4j. Adopt Resolution approving the eCharging Joint Powers Agreement
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.
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: December 3, 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:
Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this study session item is to continue the City Council’s review and discussion of
proposed comments on the SWLRT DEIS.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What other written comments for the draft environmental impact statement does the
Council wish to have staff prepare?
POLICY CONSIDERATION BACKGROUND:
The City’s policy on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) and freight rail as expressed in
resolutions 10-070 and 11-058 provide the context in which the City’s draft comments are being
prepared. Those resolutions pulled together and concisely restated policy positions and analyses
undertaken by the City stretching back more than ten years to the Railroad Task Force (RRTF)
work in the late 1990’s while also updating the City’s positions based on current conditions and
information. Much of the City’s LRT and freight rail policy stems from the 2001 City resolution
in support of the RRTF’s work including the recommendation to eliminate the switching wye in
skunk hollow. The key points of the City’s policy include:
• The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest
Transitway LRT project.
• The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the
Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative
impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration,
odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and,
circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of
St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any
new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South
CP-MNS tracks;
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and
safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis
Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
BACKGROUND:
Attached for City Council review and discussion is the latest draft of proposed City comments on
the SW Transitway DEIS. It attempts to incorporate the direction the City Council provided at
the November 26th study session. The organization of the comments is as follows.
1. Statement of City support for the SWLRT project.
2. The City’s policy on SWLRT and freight rail as memorialized in Resolution 10-070.
3. Review of the DEIS in the context of the City’s policy including specifically an analysis
as to whether the city’s requirements for support of re-routing train traffic to the MN&S
route have been met. Those requirements being,
a. That no other feasible alternative route for freight rail exists; and,
b. Adequate mitigation on the MN&S route is provide including especially the
elimination of the switching wye.
4. Additional concerns with the DEIS.
This draft of the proposed comments is still a work in progress. There is still work to do and
refinements being prepared. Your comments and suggestions are very welcome and much
appreciated.
Important Schedule Update!!
Friday morning the following announcement was made in an email from Hennepin County.
On October 12, 2012, The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) published a notice of availability for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Southwest Transitway Project (EIS No. 20120320) for public review
and comment. That notice stated that the public review and comment period would
conclude on December 11, 2012. FTA has decided to extend the public comment period
until Monday, December 31, 2012 upon request from a Federal cooperating agency.
DATES: The public comment period is extended from December 11, 2012 through
December 31, 2012. No additional public hearings will be held.
The deadline for submitting comments on the DEIS has been extended to December 31,
2012 by FTA.
NEXT STEPS:
The new deadline for the submittal of DEIS comments gives the City’s a little more time to
complete its comments, however since the last City Council meeting for 2012 is still December
17th, the timeline for our work is only slightly modified. The proposed schedule for completing
and submitting the City’s comments on the SW DEIS is as follows:
December 3rd Special Study Session discussion of draft comments
December 10th Study Session discussion of final draft of comments
December 17th Special Study Session if needed; City approval of final comments for
submission to Hennepin County by December 31, 2012 at the regular City
Council meeting.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the
costs will be paid for through the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to
being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT.
Attachments: EIS Process information from City Attorney
Draft Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments
Comparison of 3a and 3a-1 Corridor Widths
Table 5 and 9 from Tech Memo #4
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
EIS PROCESS
• December 11, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS
• Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of
the final EIS
• Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council
• Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design
activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the
EIS process)
• Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following:
1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action.
2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious
consideration by the agency.
3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses.
4. Make factual corrections.
5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response.
• FTA approval and publication of final EIS
• Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period
• FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize
any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land
impacts.
• Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS
To: Hennepin County
Housing, Community Works & Transit
ATTN: Southwest Transitway
701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55415
From: City of St. Louis Park
Date: December 11, 2012
Subject: Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS)
The City of St. Louis Park continues to support the implementation of the Southwest Transitway
LRT project. We look forward to light rail train service for the benefit of our residents and
businesses and the region at large. Expansion of the transit system in the Metro area is a wise and
prudent investment supported by the City of St. Louis Park. We have been eager and willing
participants throughout the SW Transitway planning process and look forward to our participation in
the SWLRT design process.
However, the SWLRT project as described in the DEIS and the analysis provided in the DEIS fail to
satisfy both of the conditions the City of St. Louis Park established as the basis for accepting
rerouting of freight trains to the MN&S line:
1) That through a very thorough and careful analysis shows that no other viable route exists
for freight rail, and
2) If relocation of freight rail is the only option, adequate mitigation measures are included.
The City’s support for SWLRT was memorialized in Resolution 10-005 (attached) sent to the
Metropolitan Council in January 2010. The resolution stated the City’s support for the SWLRT
project and the Locally Preferred Alternative, alternative 3A. It also acknowledged that construction
of the SWLRT line would require changes to freight rail in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, and it
expressed concerns that the impacts of the freight rail changes be identified fairly and addressed
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 5
fully. The City’s support for SWLRT was in fact conditioned on these issues being appropriately
addressed.
The support for SWLRT was stated again in Resolution 10-070 in July 2010. That resolution also
recognized the continued challenge presented by freight rail for the implementation of the SWLRT
project and stated the conditions under which the rerouting of train traffic from the Kenilworth
corridor to the MN&S tracks would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park. The resolution
established two conditions under which the City would accept relocation of the freight trains to the
MN&S tracks. They were (1) that it be shown that co-location in Kenilworth corridor of freight rail
and light rail was not feasible; and, (2) if freight trains were to be rerouted to the MN&S, adequate
mitigation be provided.
Resolution 10-070 states the city’s policy regarding freight rail rerouting. It says:
“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the City of St.
Louis Park:
1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and,
2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted by
the City Council October 21, 2001; and,
3. Opposes the introduction of any rerouted freight rail traffic north and south through the City
of St. Louis Park; and,
4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park
unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route
exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative
impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors,
traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and,
circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St.
Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other
tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new
interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS
tracks;
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 6
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety
measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park
throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.”
A. Is there a feasible alternative to MN&S for freight rail?
For St. Louis Park the acceptability of the MN&S tracks for re-routed Kenilworth trains starts with
the question, is there any other feasible alternative route for the freight trains? The Southwest
Transitway DEIS does not make a compelling argument that co-location of freight rail and light rail
in the Kenilworth corridor (alternative 3A-1) is not feasible.
Section 4(f) Issue. The DEIS concludes that co-location is not feasible primarily based on the
conclusion that co-location requires would require the acquisition of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park.
It concludes that this would not be a de minimis taking of parkland and that it would “constitute a
section 4(f) use”, which means use of the Cedar Lake Park land would not be allowed by the federal
Secretary of Transportation, thereby making alternative 3A-1 unfeasible. However, insufficient
detail is provided in the DEIS to evaluate the actual amount of the taking and whether any minor
modifications of the rail alignments would avoid this conclusion.
It appears the property in question is not actively used by the public, is former railroad property and
is the current location of freight rail tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. These factors make it difficult
to understand how the DEIS reached its conclusion that this would be a 4(f) use. Furthermore, a 4(f)
use conclusion requires that a “prudent and feasible” alternative must exist. The MN&S route for
freight trains is assumed in the DEIS to be a “prudent and feasible” alternative. Without additional
mitigation, agreement from the railroads on the design of this route, and complete evaluation of all
the impacts associated with this route, that conclusion cannot be reached. The MN&S route does not
meet typical railroad design standards, it presents severe operational challenges, has unique
conditions such as tracks separating St. Louis Park High School from its athletic field and tracks
passing diagonally through intersections; these have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS and
make the DEIS’s conclusions unsupportable.
Many potential impacts have not been addressed including for example:
a. No evaluation of the impact on surrounding residents from trains using the new siding track
on the BNSF, including the potential for BNSF’s use of the siding.
b. Construction of the connection from the Bass Lake spur to the MN&S constitutes
extraordinary construction.
c. Community cohesion will be effect by the increased train traffic between Roxbury and
Keystone parks, closing of 29th Street.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 7
Dismissing Alternative 3A-1 is Premature. Drawing a conclusion in the DEIS that the co-location
alternative is not feasible is premature and contradicts the direction to the Met Council from the FTA
to study and address all the concerns prior to entering into the final design phase of the SWLRT
project. The Met Council has not begun preliminary design, so concluding that co-location is not
feasible in the DEIS appears to pre-emptively dismiss the co-location alternative. St. Louis Park
believes this conclusion is inappropriate at this stage of the SWLRT design process.
Evaluation of Alternative Needs to Wait for PE. The analysis of the freight rail impacts of the
MN&S route is almost exclusively based on the EAW work completed on that corridor in 2010-11.
Although that is the source of the DEIS’s analysis of the MN&S route, the comments submitted by
St. Louis Park and the public regarding the EAW were not included in the DEIS documents or
addressed as a part of the analysis. These comments are pertinent to the evaluation of the prudence
and feasibility of the MN&S route for rerouted freight trains. The City of St. Louis Park dropped its
legal challenge of the MN&S EAW with the understanding that a full analysis of the co-location
option as well as the MN&S route would be done and that this work would include preliminary
designs for both routes. The DEIS does not offer any new design or further analysis of either route
from what was done during the MN&S study and the work by the City of St. Louis Park’s own
consultants. There needs to be more design and analysis before a co-location alternative is declared
not feasible.
B. Mitigation in DEIS is inadequate
Vacated EAW. The re-routing of trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S tracks is not a new idea. It is
a concept that was the focus of an EAW that was prepared in submitted in 2011 and later that year
vacated. While that process is not acknowledged in the DEIS it appears that the design for the re-
route proposed in the DEIS and the evaluation of that design is identical to the work done for the
vacated 2011 EAW, with no new analyses. In 2011 the City carefully reviewed the EAW and found
it to be inadequate. The City hired its own independent consultant (SEH) to help review the EAW,
identify potential alternative routes for freight rail and analyze the potential of freight rail in both the
MN&S and the Kenilworth routes. One of those alternative Kenilworth routes formed the basis for
the DEIS Co-location alternative (Alternative 3A-1). Since the DEIS essentially incorporates the
2011 EAW and SEH concept plan, the City is submitting as part of its comments on the DEIS, its
comments on the 2011 EAW and the four technical memos prepared by SEH regarding freight rail
and the freight rail alternative routes. All of the materials St. Louis Park previously submitted are
attached.
Robust Mitigation Needed. The inherent characteristics of the MN&S route require robust mitigation
to protect the neighboring residents, businesses, students, community facilities; and, to ensure trains
operate safely. The MN&S is a winding single track, much of it elevated on a narrow rights of way
that pass through a modest residential neighborhood, St. Louis Park High School, Keystone,
Roxbury and Dakota city parks, the local food shelf, publicly owned low-income housing,
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 8
elementary schools, and the high school athletic field, which is separated from the school by the
railroad tracks.
The City Resolution 10-070 recognized the characteristics and needs along the MN&S and Bass
Lake Spur in the mitigation requirements it spells out. The mitigation alluded to in the DEIS
addresses some of these requirements but falls well short of what is needed if a reroute to the MN&S
is to be successful. Below the City restates the mitigation that should be required for both freight
routes under consideration and for the LRT line itself.
1. LRT mitigation and impact needs: Mitigation specifically for the LRT itself is needed,
including:
a. Grade separation of the regional trail.
In either freight rail location alternative, grade separation of the regional trail needs to be
considered at the Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue crossings. This is a heavily
used trail and will have a significant amount of vehicle traffic around the station areas.
The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is shown to move from the north side of the rail to
the south side of the rail at Wooddale Avenue. Walkers and bikers would have to turn
south or north, and cross the tracks in order to stay on the regional trail. This movement
is very awkward and needs to be remedied to become a straight through route. Grade
separation may be able to solve the crossing issue. Grade separation of the trail would
improve the crossing and could solve the crossing issue where the trail is shown to switch
sides at Wooddale.
b. Maintain access to Lilac Park from the regional trail.
The regional trail is shown on the south side of the light rail tracks east of Highway 100.
The new Lilac Park is on the north side immediately east of Highway 100. Access from
the trail to the park for users would need to remain under all alternatives.
c. Consider a trail along both sides of the LRT line for access to Lilac Park and other
destinations along the trail.
d. Noise from crossing signals and train horns must be addressed.
2. Mitigation for both Alternative 3A-1 and 3A (co-location or relocation): Some freight
rail mitigation items are needed no matter which route is chosen freight train traffic.
a. Track improvements/upgrades
The proposed improvements will upgrade the tracks to modern mainline standards that
will include continuous welded rail and upgraded crossing signals with gates.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 9
b. Mandatory environmental requirements
This includes all mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland permits, waste
disposal, erosion control, storm water runoff, construction noise, etc.
c. Whistle Quiet Zone WQZ
Whistle Quiet Zone is a method to allow trains not to sound their horns at road crossings.
This has been identified as a requirement to mitigate the train horn noise that will exceed
Federal standards. Because of noise drift, all crossings in St Louis Park should be
upgraded to meet the WQZ standards.
d. Fencing & signage
The DEIS suggests fencing and signage to minimize pedestrian trespassing, but is not
specific as to which areas would be included.
e. Improvements to reroute coal trains
The coal trains that pass through St. Louis Park originate in Wyoming and Montana and
bring coal to a sugar plant in Renville, west of the Twin Cities. Currently trains come
from Wyoming and Montana travel all the way into Minneapolis using the BNSF tracks
before back tracking through the Kenilworth corridor and St. Louis Park west to the sugar
plant. The empty coal trains return to Wyoming and Montana without passing through
St. Louis Park or Minneapolis. They go directly west from the sugar plant to Appleton
MN and interchange back to the BNSF line.
The loaded coals trains do not use the Appleton interchange because of track conditions
on the west end of the TC&W. A track rehabilitation project to replace cross ties on the
western part of the TC&W could allow for the reroute of the loaded coal trains and
eliminate the need for the coal trains to pass through Minneapolis and St. Louis Park.
TC&W has estimated that this project would cost about two million dollars.
f. Rail lubricators
Rail lubricators installed in the track would allow for reduced wheel noise and rail wear.
g. Concrete ties (vibration reduction)
Concrete ties rather than wood ties would allow for less vibration induced in to the
ground, because of the larger mass of the ties. Concrete ties also work better in the
tighter curves to hold gauge.
3. Mitigation measures needed for Alternative 3A (relocation): These are the Mitigation
items needed specifically for re-routing trains to the MN&S route.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 10
a. Elimination of CP tracks east of Wooddale Road
This would only apply if the reroute is the chosen alternative. The Bass Lake line of the
CP railroad as proposed in the DEIS does not extend east of the Wooddale Road. In
discussions with CP during the Hwy 100 reconstruction project development process
indicated there is a need for this track to remain past Hwy 100. If the track remains to
the east of Wooddale Avenue, the SW LRT will have the same station issues with co-
locating freight trains that the proposed reroute is expected to solve. Keeping trains in
this area even though the freight traffic is rerouted to MN&S means there would be
additional impacts to the City of St. Louis Park. These would include the traffic delays
caused by the trains being able to cross Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard, the
impact of noise and vibration of moving and storing trains in the area, and the potential
for additional safety issues depending on what is stored or moved in rail cars in the area.
b. Removal of switching wye
The switching wye allows the trains to transfer between the Bass Lake line and the
MN&S. This has been a source of noise for the City because of the inefficient layout of
the tracks causing multiple movements for each train.
c. Connection to MN&S south
The proposed alignment in the DEIS does not address an efficient move of trains to the
south. A direct south connection track enables the removal of the switching wye and
allows for an efficient train movement from the west to the south and eliminates the
multiple switching moves that are now necessary to make that move.
d. Grade separated Hwy 7 north frontage road
This would only apply if the reroute is the chosen alternative. The additional trains will
put pressure on traffic at the four grade crossings near the High School. This grade
separation would provide a roadway that could avoid trains.
e. Create 100 foot min. width corridor in Single Family housing area.
The area north of Minnetonka Boulevard on the MN&S has a railroad right of way width
of 66’. The mitigation is to expand the right of way to allow larger safety zone around
the tracks.
f. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th Street.
If 29th Street is closed, 28th Street is the only east-west access for the Birchwood and
Bronx Park neighborhoods. This underpass would allow a direct access to Dakota Park
and Peter Hobart School.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 11
g. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Avenue
There are a high level of pedestrian movements in the Dakota Avenue area caused by the
location of the high school and its facilities. This overpass would allow for alternative
route for pedestrians. The exact location is to be determined.
h. Mitigation for sound and vibration at SLP High School
The High School has expressed issues with the current train operations and is concerned
about an increase. This mitigation item would be to help make improvements to the
building to help mitigate the noise and vibration.
i. Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 at MN&S
Highway 7 has undergone significant improvement with a new interchange at Wooddale
Avenue and a planned interchange at Louisiana Avenue and there is a need for
pedestrians to cross Hwy 7 between these two interchanges.
j. Underpass connecting Roxbury & Keystone Parks
This would only apply if the reroute is the chosen alternative. The Roxbury and Keystone
Parks are on each side of the MN&S track. With the increased traffic, this underpass
would allow for better circulation between the two parks.
k. Removal of siding from Bass Lake Spur
In addition to the wye switching there is a rail spur used to store and switch rail cars on
the Bass Lake line. This use creates noise issues for the City. Under alternative 3A,
freight trains are relocated to the MN&S and the freight rail tracks are removed to the
west of Wooddale Avenue. It is important that the tracks and all sidings east of
Wooddale Avenue be removed in the event of freight rail relocation. Trains crossing
Wooddale would present significant traffic delays for the station area.
There is concern by the city that the railroad companies wish to keep the tracks over
Highway 100, as well as the sidings east of Highway 100. Keeping trains in this area
even though the freight traffic is rerouted to MN&S means there would be additional
impacts to the City of St. Louis Park. These would include the traffic delays caused by
the train crossing Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard, the impact of noise and
vibration of moving and storing trains in the area, and the potential for additional safety
issues depending on what is stored or moved in rail cars in the area.
The mitigation item is to replace these storage tracks in a more compatible land use area
outside of the City.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 12
4. Mitigation measures needed for Alternative 3A-1 (co-location): These are mitigation
measures needed specifically if trains continue to be routed east-west through St. Louis Park
and the Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis.
a. Beltline Boulevard Grade Separation.
Today traffic on Beltline Boulevard is experiencing delays; with the addition of a station
at this location, additional traffic projected would add to the delays and congestion for
vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at
Beltline Boulevard, vehicle traffic on Beltline would experience serious delays. Grade
separation of freight rail would be of primary importance, in order for the LRT station to
operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station.
b. Grade separation at Wooddale Avenue.
Today traffic on Wooddale Avenue is experiencing delays; with the addition of a station
at this location, additional traffic projected would add to the delays and congestion for
vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at
Wooddale Avenue, vehicle traffic at Wooddale and 36th Street would experience delays.
Grade separation of the rail would be of primary importance, in order for the LRT station
to operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station.
C. Other DEIS concerns
Beyond the failure of the DEIS to demonstrate that there is no feasible freight rail route than
the MN&S alternative and that there is adequate mitigation for the MN&S, the City of St.
Louis Park has many other concerns with regards to the DEIS. The specific concerns are
described below.
1. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale inappropriate for LRT DEIS.
The SWDEIS introduces in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, a new goal - Goal 6 – Support
economically competitive freight rail system, which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan.
This is inappropriate because:
a. This goal was not adopted through any public process.
b. The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and
re-locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the
new Goal 6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A is
that it helps implement the state rail plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains
and possibly other railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going
today; yet the DEIS does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or
evaluate the impact of trains going north of the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park,
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 13
Golden Valley and beyond. The potential impact from possible additional train
traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route.
c. All of the alternatives in the DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new
goal; previously action was only take on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes.
d. This DEIS is supposed to be about the SWLRT project not the State Rail Plan;
introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the DEIS.
e. The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the
State Rail Plan;
f. Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and
suggestion that TC&W trains will use the Humboldt Yard; those cities that the MNS
travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington.
g. Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and therefore would
need to be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MNS.
2. Comparison of Freight Routing Alternatives is Incomplete.
The DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the two LPA alternatives of co-location and re-
route for freight rail. Conclusions drawn in the document are not supported by the data in the
DEIS. For example there is lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on
such items as wetlands, floodplains, park land, community cohesion, acquisition of properties,
capital costs, and economic impacts among others. In addition, the potential impacts of increased
freight rail traffic along the MN&S are minimized, such as the community cohesion impacts. In
the 3A alternative, it is indicated that there are more impacts on “primarily high quality, high
income multi-family housing by the West Lake Street station,” however there is no accounting of
similar impacts on St. Louis Park neighborhoods in either alternative.
3. 4f Considerations are Inadequate
Section 7.0 of the DEIS is labeled draft Section 4(f) evaluation. Its preliminary two-fold
conclusion that the use of Cedar Lake Park “would likely not be avoided” or considered to be de
minimis is unsupported by any factual analysis, does not comply with applicable federal rules
and exhibits a total disregard for any fair and objective analysis of co-location as a feasible
alternative.
There are no facts set forth anywhere in the DEIS identifying the purported .81 acres of Cedar
Lake Park or how the calculation was made. (The City assumes that .81 acres is not the land
occupied by the existing tracks.) At pages 7-21, the DEIS states that “conceptual engineering
completed to date” identifies the 0.81 acres. DEIS Appendix F contains “conceptual engineering
drawings.” There is nothing in the appendix that even addresses co-location at all, yet alone
anything that identifies the relocation of the existing-freight rail tracks.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 14
At ES-7 and 2-41, the DEIS states that the Kenilworth tracks “would need to be reconstructed to
meet BNSF design standards for clearance requirements.” It is unclear whether a claimed
clearance requirement is linked to the claimed .81 acre impact on Cedar Lake Park. The co-
location assumes a 25’ distance between the freight railroad and light rail tracks. This 25’
distance is being used by HC for similar projects. Assuming this separation distance, there is no
apparent need to relocate the freight rail track to the west into Cedar Lake Park.
The Section 4(f) rules require that a project be designed to avoid or minimize the impact on 4(f)
property. There is absolutely no evidence in the DEIS that any attempt has been made, as part of
whatever conceptual engineering on co-location has been performed, to avoid any impact to
Cedar Lake Park, if in fact one even exists. One seemingly obvious concept would be to make
any required alignment shift to the east onto HCRRA property.
There are also no facts or analysis as to why any impact to park land that might occur would not
be considered “de minimis” which is defined by applicable rule as an impact that “will not
adversely affect the features, attributes or activities” of the park land. There are no facts or
analysis as to why any minor shifting of the freight rail track along the border of Cedar Lake
Park, assuming it cannot be avoided, would not be de minimis. There are also no facts or
analysis, even on a conceptual level, as to why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
would, potentially arbitrarily, refuse to consider such an impact to be de minimis, especially if
mitigating steps were taken to lessen any impact.
4. Freight rail routing impacts are not adequately addressed or accurately evaluated in
the reroute alternative 3A.
a. Noise and Whistle Quiet Zone.
FTA has a prescribed process and rules to evaluate noise and vibration issues (Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment). If noise or vibration exceeds certain standards
for various types of land use, projects are required to mitigate those impacts. The DEIS
noise and impact analysis (Sections 4.7 and 4.8) was done using the impact of transit
vehicles.
The DEIS proposes that a Railroad Whistle Quiet Zone is the only mitigation measure
that is needed to bring the freight rail reroute alternative into noise level compliance.
Quiet Zones are local initiatives meant to minimize train noise from whistles but is
administrated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). If a community meets their
risk index standards, Quiet Zones will be approved. Quiet Zones must be applied for by
the local road authority but in areas with multiple jurisdictions, one road authority can be
the lead agency. Bells located on the signals will continue to operate. The minimum
safety devices at a crossing is railroad signals with gates. A risk assessment is done for
each crossing and certain types of crossings may need additional safety improvements
such as center medians or our quadrant gates.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 15
A field study is required and the diagnostic team from the FRA, MNDOT, the Railroads
and the Road Authority will evaluate each crossing any potential improvements. The
evaluation of the vehicles, roadways and train traffic is straight forward.
There are several areas that can make quiet zones difficult to implement including:
i. The risk analysis is a mathematical based program that has a difficult time
accurately reflecting large changes in either train or road activity. The
formulas are influenced previous crash histories that are not reflected if
conditions change quickly.
ii. The rules are not clear on how pedestrians should be considered. The FRA
relies heavily on the engineering judgment of the diagnostic team. The team
needs to evaluate how extensive the pedestrian movements are, the type of
pedestrian groups (young children, older people, mobility challenged etc.) ,
potential for trespassing on railroad property, attractive nuisances (short cuts,
bridges, other side of the track, etc.), sight distance of an approaching train,
sight distance of a pedestrians and use time. Treatment of Quiet Zones for
pedestrians has ranged from doing nothing, to installing a few signs, to very
extensive fencing and control measures.
iii. The rules to not address private crossings and what safety improvements
should be done.
iv. The FRA has the authority to rescind a quiet zone if there is a rise in crashes
or incidents.
The train engineer also has wide latitude on when to use the horn in a quiet zone area.
He can sound the horn when:
(i) If there is track maintenance or other construction in the area;
(ii) If he sees a potential dangerous situation such as a vehicle stopped on the
track or pedestrian trespassers
(iii)If crossing signals are malfunctioning.
The crossings in St Louis Park are unique and the risk numbers for vehicles are relatively
low but treatment of the pedestrians will be a challenge. A formal diagnostic team
review should be done early in the PE process to evaluate if a WQZ can be approved. The
results of the diagnostic team’s review should be concerned when evaluating which
alternative route for freight trains is the preferred and selected alternative.
b. Vibration
Section 4.8.4 of the DEIS evaluation of ground vibration for the reroute uses the criteria
“infrequent use” for locomotives and “occasional use” for rail cars. They determined
that only one parcel is impacted from the expected vibration. The DEIS use of
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 16
“infrequent” or “occasional” use by freight trains is not correct. Section 8.1.3 of the
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is the section that discusses vibration
impact criteria for freight trains. The guidelines require the use of “frequent” use as the
guideline. This reduces the maximum impact allowed from 80 VdB or 75 DvB to 72
DvB. Using the graph in the EAW (Figure 6, page 12), the impacts should have
measured for all residential and commercial structures parcels within 150 feet of the track
c. Cost Comparison.
The total cost in 2012 dollars for alternative 3A-1 (Co-location of freight rail) is shown to
be $22,866,000 more than alternative 3A (re-routing freight rail to the MN&S) in
corrected Table 8.1-1. However insufficient detail and supporting information is
provided to evaluate these numbers.
d. Construction impact variances appear arbitrary and are not explained.
The evaluation table in Chapter 11 shows construction impacts as “medium” in the
relocation alternative (3A) versus being shown as “high” for the co-location alternative
(3A-1), even though relocation of freight would have more construction complexity and
cost than co-location.
e. Community Cohesion inaccurately portrayed.
“Community Cohesion”, the evaluation of how freight rail and LRT lines will split
neighborhoods is shown as “no impact” for the relocation alternative (3A) versus being
shown as “slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative (3A-1), even though both
the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridors experience freight rail traffic today and the
Kenilworth traffic today is the train traffic that would be rerouted to the MN&S tracks.
The same train traffic in the Kenilworth corridor has been judged as having a negative
impact and as having no impact in the MN&S corridor. This is despite the fact that
rerouting to the MN&S corridor will involve these actions and impacts.
i. The changes needed to accommodate the increased and rerouted trains
includes closing of at least one local street, 29th Street thereby turning the
MN&S tracks into an impenetrable wall stretching from Minnetonka Blvd to
the BNSF tracks, limiting vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access in a
neighborhood otherwise served by a classic neighborhood street grid.
ii. The closed streets north of Minnetonka Blvd mean an approximately 30 block
neighborhood east of the MN&S tracks will no longer have convenient access
to Hobart School, Dakota Park and access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail
immediately on the west side of the MN&S tracks.
iii. The MN&S tracks wind their way through the Walker Street/Library
Lane/Lake Street commercial area. In one case literally passing through an
intersection on a diagonal, resulting in the potential for trains to block both
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 17
streets at once to the inconvenience of pedestrians and drivers; and the
detriment of local businesses. This same area is home to the High School, the
Spanish Immersion Elementary School, STEP (the local food shelf and
service organization) and the High School’s athletic fields and stadium.
While trains travel through and disrupt this area today, the volume is
extremely low; two trains of approximately 10 cars each day. The trains that
would be relocated to the MN&S are 4 to 6 trains a day and 30 to 120 cars in
length. This is a significant increase in potential disruption to community
cohesion.
iv. By comparison, virtually none of these conditions are present in the
Kenilworth corridor or in the section of Bass Lake Spur east of the MN&S
tracks. No streets are proposed to be closed in these areas, no schools are
located adjacent to the rail ROW, and the tracks do not bisect any commercial
areas.
In addition the MN&S corridor is narrow (66 feet) and abuts numerous modest single family
homes mostly on 50 ft. lots. This is in stark contrast to the Kenilworth corridor which even
today is generally wider than the MN&S corridor, with widths up to 160 ft. and as noted in
the DEIS itself, is characterized by “high income” housing often on relatively large lots. The
MN&S corridor includes several scattered site public housing units for low-income residents,
the Kenilworth corridor includes high income housing and in some cases high rise housing.
The modest income residents of the MN&S corridor are being asked to shoulder the
responsibility to accommodate freight traffic without any significant mitigation while the
high income Kenilworth residents are not only relieved of the burden of negative impacts
associated with freight rail, they are given the benefit of having light rail service. The bulk
of the homes along the MN&S route will be more than ½ mile from the nearest LRT station.
The Kenilworth residents will see the negative impacts of freight rail replaced by the positive
benefits of convenient light rail service.
f. Conclusion regarding continuous flow of freight rail is inaccurate.
The DEIS concludes that the relocation alternative achieves “continuous flow of freight
rail throughout the study area” and that the co-location alternative does not. This is not
true. Both routes for freight trains are continuous to the current destinations and neither
route allows “continuous flow” to the destinations that TC&W railroad hopes to reach in
the future. The DEIS presumes that the TC&W would benefit from being able to access
the MN&S and use it as a means to reach places it does not seek to go now. The DEIS
presents no evidence that the TC&W has any interest in reaching the places that the
MN&S tracks connect despite the fact that there is clear evidence that TC&W use of the
MN&S tracks to reach its desired locations would be circuitous and time consuming with
potential negative (at grade crossing of major streets) consequences for local
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 18
communities. Only adding a direct connection to MN&S southbound from the Bass Lake
Spur and elimination of the Skunk Hollow wye would be an improvement in the
continuous flow of freight rail traffic, and that is not part of any of the build alternatives
considered in the DEIS.
g. Improve mobility goal evaluation inaccurate.
The alternative 3A, relocating freight trains is shown to “support” the goal of improved
mobility while alternative 3A-1 is shown as only “somewhat supports” this goal. This is
not true. Both alternatives support mobility. There is no difference in ridership, user
benefits, travel times or cost per passenger mile between the alternatives 3A and 3A-1.
Both should be judged as supporting mobility.
h. Protect the environment goal conclusion incorrect.
This goal is shown as “somewhat supports goal” in the relocation alternative vs. being
shown as “does not support goal” in co-location alternative even though the data shows
more wetland and floodplain impacts, among others for the relocation alternative.
i. Preserve and protect the quality of life goal inaccurately judged.
This goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does
not support goal” in co-location alternative; it is stated that co-location would “divide
neighborhoods”. Equal train traffic will have similar impacts on adjoining
neighborhoods no matter which neighborhood it passes through. One neighborhood’s loss
is another’s gain.
j. Support economic development goal incomplete analysis.
This goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as
“somewhat support goal” in co-location alternative, without explanation. Five LRT
stations would be affected by the presence of freight trains if the co-location alternative
were implemented. Freight train traffic has the potential for negative impacts on the
development opportunities near the stations. However two of the five stations have
limited development opportunity already. The Penn station is difficult to access and
already has the presence of freight rail (BNSF) on a much grander scale complicating
development options. The 21st street station is in a fully developed single family
neighborhood with limited development opportunities and a ridership shed that is almost
completely to the east of the LRT tracks which would not be hindered by the presence of
freight trains on the west side of the LRT tracks. The other three stations are also stations
with one dominant side to the stations development opportunities. West Lake, Beltline
and Wooddale all have the greatest opportunities for new development on the south and
east side of the LRT station. Freight trains passing on the north and west side of these
stations will have less impact on the development potential of these areas. The
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 19
evaluation of this goal did not consider what impacts increased train traffic on the MN&S
on development opportunities in those areas.
k. Support economically competitive freight rail system.
This was not an adopted goal of the light rail project. It is shown as “supports goal” in
relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does not support goal” in co-location
alternative, even though it begs many more questions about achieving other state rail
goals contained in the plan.
l. Operational functionality for the RRs.
The DEIS uses the Hennepin County’s EAW on the freight railroad reroute and the City
of St. Louis Park’s previous work on the co- location. There was no attempt to advance
engineering on either option to resolve identify issues or impacts. These are left for the
Preliminary Engineering contractor. Both options will be studied during the PE phase.
i. There is no train operational analysis to show that the reroute is a workable
alternative. A train operation model would show if the longer trains can
navigate the curves and grades or will additional locomotives be required,
possible using distributive power. (TC&W’s locomotives are not setup to
operate as DPU).
ii. There are tight curves and steep grade not usually associated with mainline
operations. There are grades well in excess of 1 percent. There are no track
profiles included in the DEIS to understand the impacts.
iii. The Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad
(TC&W) both submitted comments during the EAW process that show major
issues with the reroute design. The DEIS does not address any of those
concerns.
iv. The CP and TC&W have indicated that they would not accept ownership of
the new structures.
v. The EAW and DEIS anticipates that the MN&S track would be out of service
for up to 1 month during construction, which is unacceptable to the CP and its
customers.
vi. The EAW showed a vertical clearance of 20’ 6” over the track, when
Minnesota statutory clearance is 22’.
vii. The DEIS did not provide an additional noise and vibration field data that
would help calibrate the noise and vibration models. As you recall during the
EAW process, the models were based on limited data on current MN&S trains
and no long, heavy train data.
viii. The LRT drawings in the DEIS show that freight tracks will terminate at
Wooddale Avenue. The TC&W have indicated that they will need track east
of the Skunk Hollow wye to switch about 60 cars trains from the south. The
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 20
DEIS must include elimination of the skunk hollow switching wye and
provision of a south connection to the MN&S for this to happen. It is not
shown.
ix. The “improved” route for the TC&W trains works only for north or east
bound trains. The movement to the south towards Savage is still inefficient.
The Railroads would be required to maintain the Skunk Hollow wye or use
the new siding along the BNSF to run around the train to access the MN&S
south. The second movement described would require the southbound trains
to pass through the MN&S track twice. If the Skunk Hollow wye is
eliminated, there is a customer west of Louisiana that would have its rail
access severed.
x. If the reroute alternative is chosen, there should be several modifications to
the grades, curves and right of way to improve safety and operations.
1. The minimum right of way should be 100 feet wide.
2. The curves and grades need smooth out to minimize the roller coaster
affect.
3. The area near around Louisiana Avenue should be rethought.
Assuming that there are no freight tracks east of the existing MN&S
bridge the LRT and reroute grades could be adjusted to lower the
overall height. The depth of structure should also be review to lower
the height.
m. There should be a circulation study in the area north of Minnetonka Boulevard to
minimize the impacts of the proposed closing of 29th Street. Option should include
new bridges, pedestrian trails and noise buffers.
n. The improving access north of the BNSF is outside of the study area and no impacts
have been addresses for the additional trains. TC&W have indicated that they do not
have any interested in going to the Humboldt Yard to interchange their normal trains.
5. Elimination of the “skunk hollow” switching wye, Bass Lake siding and provide connection
to MN&S South are not included in the DEIS but should be.
Elimination of the siding and switching wye south of the Bass Lake Spur in the Oxford Street
industrial area needs to be included in the SWLRT project. Without creation of a direct
connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S southbound and removal of the switching
wye, a rail siding stretching from the MN&S tracks to Minneapolis will be needed to
accommodate 50 to 75 rail cars. This siding means freight rail cars will interfere with both the
Wooddale and Beltline LRT stations and the noise from switching will affect the nearby
Louisiana Station area as well. This will be the case no matter which freight rail route (MN&S or
Kenilworth) is chosen. The negative impacts will be more significant on the station areas and
surrounding area from the siding track than from the through train track. The reason is use of the
siding track will involve storage of cars for long periods of time, idling of stationary locomotives
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 21
and the noisy, time consuming process of maneuvering trains from the Bass Lake Spur to the
MN&S or vice versa. While a freight train passing through a station area may interrupt transit
activity for a few minutes at a time as a train passes, a switching procedure could take hours and
stored cars may be in place for days to weeks. The noise associated with switching is
significantly greater and more disruptive to the surrounding area. It will be detrimental to the
development potential of station areas. Switching involves repeated train starts and stops; and the
accompanying crashing of cars coupling and the noise of locomotives accelerating. This will
limit the development potential of the station areas nearby and decrease the potential ridership on
the SWLRT.
Eliminating the switching wye and the siding on the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the
Louisiana Station also has the benefit of making any connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the
MN&S Northbound easier and less impactful. The proposed connection from the Bass Lake
Spur to the MN&S used in the DEIS bridges up and over the Bass Lake Spur siding track and the
proposed SWLRT tracks. This results in the connection being higher and steeper than would be
necessary if the siding was not present. The clearance over freight rail tracks is greater than what
is required for LRT tracks. Eliminating the siding means the structure for the freight rail
connection to the MN&S tracks could be lowered reducing the steepness of the grade which in
turn would reduce the noise associated with locomotives pulling trains up this steep grade.
Elimination of the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana station would benefit the
station as well. With the siding in place, access to the LRT station platform is potentially more
complicated. The presence of rail cars stored or being maneuvered on the siding limit visibility
of the station and make the LRT passenger’s experience less pleasant.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Page 22
11/30/12
Comparison of
Alternative 3A and 3A-1 Freight Rail Corridor
Widths and Proximity to Homes
(source: from the 4/18/11 Tech Memo #4 revised 5/31/11, prepared by SEH, SWDEIS,)
Residential Properties
There are a significant number of residents living along both routes. However residents along the
MN&S tend to be closer to the tracks than the residents along the Kenilworth route and the
MN&S route is mostly single family homes.
Within 50 ft of the center line of the MN&S tracks there are 85 single family lots and 2 single
family homes, all of them in St. Louis Park.
Along the Kenilworth route there are no single family homes that close today. There are 33
multi-family parcels and 13 townhomes within 50 ft of the centerline of railroad tracks in
Kenilworth in Minneapolis if the freight rail tracks are re-aligned to accommodate both freight
rail and LRT.
The SWDEIS alternative 3A-1, Co-location shows freight rail in Kenilworth requires acquisition
of additional right of way on the west side of the current Kenilworth tracks, north of West Lake
Street, at the Cedar Lake Townhomes. While the proposed co-location track alignment does not
literally pass through any of the townhomes, the center line of the track appears to be 15 feet or
less from the nearest townhomes. The SWDEIS assumes that all 57 Cedar Lake Townhomes
would be acquired and removed. The width of the Cedar Lake Townhome property is
approximately 200 feet. Acquisition of this property creates a substantial buffer between freight
rail tracks and the single family homes in this section of the route.
No multi-family structures are within 50 feet of the center line of the proposed MN&S route,
however three garages in the Sungate Townhome complex at the “iron triangle would be.
Institutional Uses
There are no institutional uses identified along the Kenilworth route within 1/8th mile of the
freight rail tracks and five along the MN&S. Most notably St. Louis Park High School is located
adjacent to the MN&S tracks between Dakota Avenue and Library Lane.
Business Uses
Business uses range from industrial plants, warehouses, big box stores and local retail and
restaurants along both corridors. The MN&S corridor businesses are located on the southern end
with a concentration around the Lake/Walker area. The MN&S businesses on Oxford Road will
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 23
be affected by the proposed bridge to connect from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks,
northbound. Partial easements would be required from all but one parcel in this area.. It appears
that one business/property (9600 Oxford Road) will be taken in full since the building would be
under the proposed bridge. Several of the businesses along Lake Street have expressed concerns
about existing noise and vibration issues and are concerned that the proposed project will make
conditions worse.
The Kenilworth Corridor businesses are located further away from the track and are more
industrial in nature. The corridor north of Lake Street is residential and parkland.
Right of Way
The MN&S right of way is very irregular and reflects the fact that it was acquired after land had
been split into lots. The right of way varies from 34 ft to 145 ft with much of it 66 ft or 100 ft
wide.
The Kenilworth with the existing freight rail tracks is 44 ft to 200 ft wide. However adjacent to
the HCRRA right of way is right of way owned by other public entities including the City of
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board.
Tech Memo #4 Tables
Attached are two tables from the SEH Tech Memo #4 that compare the MN&S route to the
Kenilworth route for freight trains. It summarizes the characteristics of each corridor and
compares the freight rail alternatives. It should be noted that the Kenilworth alternative referred
to in these tables is the alternative prepared by SEH in 2011 that doesnot include the regional
trail in the corridor. It assumes that the regional trail is relocated to some other route at least at
the tight spot on the Kenilworth corridor just north of West Lake Street. The SWDEIS Co-
location alternative includes the regional trail, freight rail and LRT and in the tight spots of the
corridor would require additional right of way.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 24
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 25
Special Study Session Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 26
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Former Eliot School Site
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. Purpose of this report is to outline the next steps in the process of
redeveloping the former Eliot School site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What land use designation and zoning amendments should be made for the Eliot School site?
BACKGROUND:
Study Session Discussion – November 19, 2012
At the special study session on November 19th, as follow-up to the Motion to Reconsider taken
on November 5th, the City Council discussed what the appropriate land use designation and
zoning for the Eliot School site should be. The conclusion was the following direction from the
City Council.
1. The developer’s modified proposal of 141 total housing units (single family lots and
apartment units combined) was appropriate,
2. Having six of the apartment units be three bedroom units was desired,
3. Including single family home lots on the site was also desired; and,
4. Designating the Eliot site as High Density Residential on the Land Use Plan in the
Comprehensive Plan in order to accommodate this project was appropriate.
Future Action Required.
To accomplish the four City Council directions listed above, the following actions are needed.
1. December 17th the City Council will need to adopt a resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map to designate the former Eliot School site for High
Density Residential (RH) use. This designation allows the site to be rezoned in the future
as R4-Multi-Family Residential which allows a development density of up to 33 dwelling
units per acre with the approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This is sufficient
density to allow the 141 dwelling units proposed by the developer, but is much less
density than the maximum allowed in the High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan
Land Use category. The combination of the more generous Comprehensive Plan
designation and the more restrictive R4 zoning district means the Hunt & Associates, 141
dwelling unit proposal can be built without opening the door for much higher density
developments should the Hunt project not move forward for any reason.
2. Rezone the former Eliot School Site to R4 Multi-family Residential. The rezoning of the
former Eliot School property will not occur until the developer has made application for
approval of his revised plan and the City Council knows exactly what the project will be.
The intent is to only approve the rezoning of the school property once the city is ready to
Special Study Session of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Former Eliot School Site
also approve the project. The specific project approvals that will be needed won’t be
known until the developer has prepared and submitted his detailed plans sometime early
in 2013. It is anticipated that a PUD and plat (splitting the school site into an apartment
parcel and single family lots) will be needed.
3. Amend the City’s PUD ordinance. The PUD section of the city’s zoning ordinance needs
to be amended to allow both the 138 unit apartment building and three single family lots
to be created on the school site. The R4 zoning allows 141 dwelling units on the Eliot
School site; however, without an amendment to the PUD ordinance a portion of the Eliot
School site cannot be split off to be used for three single family home lots without
drastically reducing the number of apartment units that would be allowed on the other
portion of the site. City Staff will work with the City Attorney to craft the appropriate
amendment language to retain all the current controls and features of our PUD ordinance
and add the needed flexibility for the distribution of allowed housing units on a given
development site. The amendment to the PUD ordinance will come to the City Council
for approval before the request for approval of the specific development plan for the Eliot
School site.
Summary of the Current Development Plan.
Together, the three actions outlined above will make it possible for the developer, Hunt &
Associates, to move forward with their proposal for the Eliot School site. The current proposal,
the proposal discussed by the developer at the November 19, 2012 study session, is described
below. For comparison purposes the earlier proposal from the October 15th City Council
meeting is also provided.
Original October 15th Proposal
• 147 housing units total
• 3 single family lots
• 144 apartments in two buildings
• Zero three-bedroom units
November 19th Proposal
• 141 housing units total
• 3 single family lots
• 138 apartment units in two buildings
• 6 three bedroom units
Impact of reducing single family lots. At the November 19th Study Session the question was
asked if reducing the number or size of the single family lots would make it possible to designate
the site medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan and still accommodate the
proposed apartment development. This was analyzed with the developer. Eliminating one of the
single family lots adds about 1/3 of an acre to the apartment site. While this reduces the density
slightly on the apartment site, it isn’t enough to allow the apartment development with only a
medium density Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
NEXT STEPS:
On December 17th, the City Council will consider Amending the City Comprehensive Plan Land
Use map for the Eliot School Site from Civic land use to High Density Residential. This makes
it possible for the site to be rezoned R4-Multi-family Residential and for the developer to move
forward to seek approval for his development proposal. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment does not obligate the City Council to approve the rezoning of the property or to
approve the specific development plan at a future date. And, if an anticipated development does
not move forward as expected, the City Council may re-guide this site to some other land use as
it sees fit.
Special Study Session of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Former Eliot School Site
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 5, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman),
Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Cindy Douthett Nagel and Kevin Dummer (Krech, O'Brien, Mueller and Associates).
1. City Hall Renovation Project Update
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and introduced Ms. Cindy Douthett Nagel and Mr. Kevin
Dummer. He stated that all of the first floor staff will be relocated to other city buildings in the
summer of 2013 during the renovation project and the public entrance will be moved to the
second floor north side with visitors using the east side parking lot. He indicated the reception
counter will be moved to the second floor with all service deliveries taking place on second floor
adding that signage will be posted during construction.
Mr. Dummer presented several drawings of the proposed interior and exterior design and
explained that the canopy design will allow the City Hall signage to face more toward the
entrance and draw visitors to the building. He stated this design helps tie the interior design with
the exterior design and will use materials that complement the existing building with signage
similar to the raised text used at the police station.
Ms. Douthett Nagel discussed the overall floor plan noting the bathrooms have been
reconfigured to make sure the showers are code compliant and the computer kiosk has been
moved to the left and the waiting area moved to the right of the entrance. She presented the
proposed stairway design and advised that the Fire Code requires stairways to be fully enclosed
and noted the design includes fire rated glass panels to make this area look as open as possible.
She advised that the proposed finishes include neutral warm colors with the intent to keep the
reception area simple, clean and wide open without large splashes of color. She stated the work
stations have a glass panel in the top 1/3 to bring light into the space and all of the furniture can
be easily moved if the space is reconfigured in the future. She stated the break room design
includes white panels to bring in natural light and create an open feeling.
Mr. Hoffman advised that the plans will be finished over the next couple of months and the final
plans submitted to Council in January with construction scheduled to take place next summer.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that smokers will congregate in the front entrance
area and asked what can be done to make sure that does not happen.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 5, 2012
Mr. Hoffman indicated this area can be posted as a no smoking area.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would prefer to leave it to staff to determine how to incorporate public
art that is artistically pleasing and that fits into the function of the building.
Council discussed various forms of public art to incorporate into the renovation project.
It was the consensus of the City Council to integrate public art into the renovation project and to
provide the necessary funding for this public art.
2. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and advised that four public meetings have been held to
gather resident input on the plan. He stated that staff will present a summary of the comments at
Council's November 26th (or a later) study session. He added that residents who have a proposed
sidewalk in front of their property will receive another letter from the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like further information prior to the public hearing that
explains the process the City will use to make modifications to this plan based on the feedback
received from residents.
Mr. Brink suggested that Council hold another study session prior to the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger stated she has heard from residents that the plan contains no definition of
a bikeway and requested more detail about bikeways.
Mr. Brink explained that the plan has not gone into that level of detail yet and will not be
completed until the public input process is completed. He added that the bikeway plan was
generally accepted by residents and the conversations have centered on sidewalks.
Mr. Harmening requested that any resident comments be forwarded to Mr. Brink.
The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 5, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Inspections
(Mr. Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Director of Public Works (Mr.
Rardin), City En gineer (Mr. Brink), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant
Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
Administrative Services Intern (Mr. French), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: April Crockett (Mn/DOT Project Manager, West Area Engineer).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes September 24, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes October 1, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 8, 2012
Councilmember Hallfin requested that the second sentence of the tenth paragraph on page
3 be revised to state "It was also the consensus of the City Council to not allow in multi-
family and to add if setback of 25 or 20 fee feet could not be met that a fence or flyway
zone be required."
Councilmember Sanger requested that the eighth paragraph on page 7 be revised to state
"Councilmember Sanger indicated there is another Mn/DOT parcel in Cedarhurst on the
east side of Highway 100 and asked if Council should discuss this again to see if
Mn/DOT is willing to give up that parcel for a four or five single family homes."
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
The minutes were approved as amended.
3d. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3e. City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3f. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 22, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-154 authorizing award of the 2013 St. Louis Park Arts
and Culture Grants.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-155 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Jerry Herzog in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 12-156 accepting a donation from the Duck Soup Softball
Tournament in the amount of $2,000 to be available for individuals who qualify
for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-157 accepting a donation from the Minnesota Cycling
Team in the amount of $1,500 to be available for individuals who qualify for
financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department.
4e. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase
the rates paid for attorney and law clerk/paralegal services.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-158 establishing 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 12-159 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$1,426.95 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 22 (Fire
Suppression) with Brothers Fire Protection, Inc. Project No. 2008-3002, City
Contract No. 38-11.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-160 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$22,724.18 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 08
(Roofing and Metal Panels) with Tecta America Stock Roofing, LLC Project Nos.
2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 57-11.
4i. Table Second Reading of the Xcel and CenterPoint Energy Franchise Ordinances.
4j. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2423-12 imposing a
franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and authorize publication in
full.
4k. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2424-12 imposing a
franchise fee on Northern States Power Company and authorize publication in
full.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
4l. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $301,000 for Parcel 4 (6010
Highway 7 – Restaurant Brokers Property), and authorize the City Attorney to
execute stipulation of settlement for Filing Vendor Claims.
4m. Adopt Resolution No. 12-161 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 3809 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D.
07-028-24-12-0021.
4n. Adopt Resolution No. 12-162 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water and sewer service lines at 2850 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park,
MN - P.I.D. 08-117-21-33-0101.
4o. Adopt Resolution No. 12-163 Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure
and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds.
4p. Adopt Resolution No. 12-164 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$51,536.02 for Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Rehabilitation with Magney
Construction, Inc. - Project No. 2010-1300, City Contract No. 177-11.
4q. Approve for Filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27,
2012.
4r. Approve for Filing Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9,
2012.
4s. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes September 12, 2012.
4t. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Spano requested that Council reconsider the vote taken by the City
Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic
to High Density and Low Density Residential for Eliot Park Apartments.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to add discussion
regarding the vote taken by the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density
Residential for Eliot Park Apartments as item #8d to the Regular Agenda; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Santa absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider the Reconstruction of Highway 100
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and provided a brief history of the project stating that
temporary improvements were done in 2006 and in 2008 a re-scoping process was
completed. He indicated the public process has begun with three open house meetings
and a number of neighborhood area meetings with residents to discuss noise walls and
other concerns.
Ms. Crockett advised that the proposed improvements include reconstructing the bridges
over Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 7, replacing two railroad bridges south of
Highway 7, replacing the entire mainline pavement and putting in 12' lanes, adding
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
auxiliary lanes in the entire project area, replacing the trunk storm sewer, addressing
ground contamination, and installing noise walls. She presented drawings of the
proposed improvements and discussed right-of-way impacts for temporary construction
easements and permanent easements. She stated that Mn/DOT will acquire one
commercial parcel and the project does not include any residential acquisitions. She
advised the estimated construction cost of $64 million will be funded through the State
with participation by the County and City for installation of signals. She explained that
following tonight's public hearing, the City has 90 days to approve or deny the municipal
consent request or until February 3, 2013, the environmental assessment will be released
in late 2012, the noise wall voting process is ongoing and will end on December 28,
2012, the plans and specifications will be developed beginning in early 2013, the right-
of-way acquisition will be completed in May 2014, and construction is anticipated to
begin in late 2014 and will be completed in 2016.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Hagemann, 8242 Westwood Hills Curve, appeared before the City Council
and stated he felt that one aspect of this project that deserves attention is the bicycle
accommodation on Minnetonka Boulevard over Highway 100. He was disappointed that
Mn/DOT and the County did not include on-road bike accommodation in this area and
asked Council to obtain some accommodations in writing from Mn/DOT. He felt it was
important to have a striped shoulder because the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge is a
chokepoint for east-west bike travel and encouraged Council to pursue equal access for
pedestrians. He explained that a width of 5' would be ideal and 3' would be the bare
minimum, adding that by reducing the trail on the north side would result in a full 5'
accommodation in this area.
Mr. Michael Frisch, 8611 West 29th Street, appeared before the City Council and asked if
Mn/DOT intends to close Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 7 at the same time.
Ms. Crockett advised that Mn/DOT intends to complete its work on Minnetonka
Boulevard first and maintain traffic on Highway 7 during this construction phase; when
Minnetonka Boulevard is done, Mn/DOT will work on Highway 7 so that one of these
roadways will be open at all times during construction.
Ms. Diane Steen-Hinderlie, 2829 Yosemite, appeared before the City Council and stated
the beehive structure was moved from Highway 100 and Minnetonka Boulevard to the
new Lilac Park and expressed concern that a portion of the beehive was left behind. She
requested that the City include accommodation for this rock garden and ornamental pool
because of its historical value to the City and either move it to Lilac Park or leave it
where it is as a place of recreation. She stated a small group has been formed to preserve
this area called Monkey Island which is a companion structure to one located at Como
Park. She then presented written historical information to the City Council.
Mr. Philip Smith, 4725 Minnetonka Boulevard, appeared before the City Council and
agreed with Ms. Steen-Hinderlie's sentiments.
Mr. Bob Jorvig, 3663 Park Center Boulevard, appeared before the City Council and
expressed concern about the possible demolition of the remainder of the park once the
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
Mn/DOT right-of-way is confirmed. He stated this garden area is equally important to
the beehive and suggested it be looked at carefully to see if it can be preserved as a
neighborhood feature and retained as a historical site.
Mr. Tony Geier, 2901 Toledo Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated it was
a shame this project has taken so long. He stated that during rush hour there are five
merge lanes onto southbound Highway 100 between Glenwood and 36th and there are
three lanes coming from 394 and Cedar Lake Road and the traffic is not being
accommodated, adding he felt this project feels like it is too little too late. He stated
Mn/DOT will finish this project and traffic will be backed up the same as it is today and
he felt the City was being sold short.
Mr. Dan Middleton, 2610 Utica, appeared before the City Council and stated the new
entrance onto Highway 100 is right at his driveway and drivers frequently bypass onto
Utica to avoid the traffic backing up on Highway 100. He expressed concern that he will
not be able to get out of his driveway.
Mr. John Griffith of Mn/DOT stated that one of the challenges with this project has been
keeping access equivalent. He explained that shifting access at 27-1/2 creates a longer
weave distance and there should be relief from the current congestion with the additional
lanes on Highway 100, which will add capacity to get traffic further to the south. He
acknowledged there will likely be some cut-through traffic but the traffic will not operate
any differently than it does today. He added there will be a stop sign at 27th which will
provide a safer crossing area for pedestrians.
Mr. Middleton indicated the City built decorative block walls along the houses next to the
bike trail and asked if similar block walls will be added on Utica Avenue.
Mr. Rardin stated that Mn/DOT is proposing to move this entrance 200' to the north and
nothing further will be done in this area. He indicated the City is not proposing to make
any changes at this time along Utica or the bike trail. He added the City has control over
Utica and there will be a future discussion regarding this area.
Ms. Carrie Lazarus, 2926 Utica, appeared before the City Council and asked if the sound
wall on Utica will stop at the end of the block or whether it will continue past the
property by the bridge.
Ms. Crockett explained the noise wall along the west side of Highway 100 will start up
by the ramp and will end where 27-1/2 is today. She stated because of the storm water
pond and new ramp coming in, the noise wall will pick up and go all the way to the north
where the pedestrian bridge is located and will continue north past the apartments.
Mr. Rardin stated that all property off the right-of-way will be the City's responsibility in
terms of what kind of connections will be made adding that one unknown is the current
commercial property that will be severely impacted.
Ms. Lazarus asked if the Holiday gas station car wash can be moved toward the existing
service road.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
Ms. Crockett stated that Mn/DOT can only identify the impacts to that parcel and the
current layout eliminates access to the Holiday gas station; based on these impacts, the
right-of-way process will happen and Mn/DOT may own that property, but until the
right-of-way process happens, she could not state what will happen to this property.
Ms. Annie Dhir, 2620 Toledo, appeared before the City Council and expressed concern
that when the snowplow operators plow their street the snow is plowed into their
driveways and they are blocked in. She stated she has talked to the snowplow operators
who have told her they cannot switch the direction of their blades and asked if anything
can be done about this.
Mr. Rardin advised the plows are not reversible and they go around the streets in a
clockwise direction, which is the most efficient way to complete the snowplow routes.
He agreed to review this issue and follow up.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was glad to finally hear a definitive, clear statement
that Mn/DOT does not need to take any houses on Toledo and asked if Mn/DOT could
send a letter to all the homeowners along Toledo clearly informing them that Mn/DOT
will not take their property as part of this project.
Ms. Crockett replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Council previously discussed the bike accommodation
on Minnetonka Boulevard and was told it could be looked at to determine what options
might be available. She asked when Mn/DOT will have a clear answer regarding what
can be done to accommodate biking on the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge.
Ms. Crockett stated the County has told Mn/DOT it can eliminate a one foot reaction to
the center median, which will add an extra 2'. She indicated the layout shows two 10'
trails and the layout can accommodate 4' shoulders instead of 3' shoulders. She added
that the bridge width can be accommodated if that is the City's request to include it as
part of the project.
Councilmember Sanger stated it should be made clear that when municipal consent is
granted, the municipal consent process does not address the issue of noise walls and the
final determinant regarding noise walls comes from the voting by residents, which will
expire on December 28, 2012. She added the City does not have a vote on the noise wall
issue. She thanked Ms. Crockett and her team at Mn/DOT for all their work in getting
the project to this point.
Councilmember Spano requested information about the effective lifespan of these
improvements.
Ms. Crockett stated that Mn/DOT believes the improvements will last to 2030 based on
traffic projections.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
Councilmember Mavity suggested that Council discuss this matter one more time in
study session in order to get confirmation on the bike trail accommodations and to
explore possible options for the historical rock garden/Monkey Island. She stated she
remains disappointed that the project does not fully address some of the key challenges in
the southeast quadrant of the City in terms of north-south connections, which will remain
a challenge for the City.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to refer this
matter for further discussion at the special study session on November 19, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Santa absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and thanked those residents who provided input
regarding the ordinance. He advised the ordinance preserves the ability to raise and keep
bees on single family lots as well as on school and City property. He stated that the
ordinance establishes minimum standards to maintain neighborhood livability from a best
practices perspective and include a 20' minimum setback requirement which could be
reduced to 10' provided a minimum 6' fence is installed. He added the ordinance also
requires that a fresh water source be provided.
Ms. Rachel Callanan, 2316 Westridge Lane, appeared before the City Council and stated
she felt this ordinance was a solution looking for a problem. She stated she did not feel
there was a serious danger with beekeeping noting that humans have coexisted with bees
forever. She stated she was glad that Council has taken the time for thoughtful discussion
of this issue but did not believe that regulation was necessary even though the proposed
ordinance was not horrible. She urged Council to not discourage beekeeping in the City
and to vote against adopting the ordinance.
Mr. Mark Clifford, 2225 Gettysburg Avenue, appeared before the City Council and
agreed with Ms. Callanan that regulation is not needed adding he felt the proposed
ordinance was fair. He requested that an arborvitae or other natural shrub be allowed as
an option to a flyway barrier. He stated in his case, he is within 20' so a flyway barrier is
needed and a natural barrier would be more attractive on his property instead of a fence.
Mr. Harmening suggested that between First and Second Reading, staff can add language
to the ordinance that would permit natural landscaping as a flyway barrier.
Councilmember Mavity agreed with Ms. Callanan and Mr. Clifford and felt this
ordinance was a solution in search of a problem. She stated the City does not have a
problem with bees and felt this was a classic overreach in terms of what the City should
be focused on.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to deny
First Reading of Ordinance Relating to the Keeping of Bees, Amending Chapter 4 of the
St. Louis Park Code.
The motion failed 3-3 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Sanger and Ross opposed;
Councilmember Santa absent).
Councilmember Mavity stated if the ordinance is going to move forward, she felt the
flyway barrier should be less prescriptive than currently written. She felt the City needs
to be careful about setback requirements because each house has a different topography
and the City may find itself in a situation where a well-placed beehive may have to be
moved to a location that is not ideal and possibly worse for the bees.
Councilmember Sanger felt the City should not allow beehives because the City is much
too dense; however, she would support the proposed ordinance as drafted. She stated she
was opposed to beekeeping because of potential neighbor disputes and the public health
issue for people who are allergic to bee stings. She stated she preferred to keep the
setbacks at 20' because this setback would hopefully prevent bees from swarming in
neighbor's yards.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Relating to the Keeping of Bees, Amending Chapter 4 of the
St. Louis Park Code and to set Second Reading for November 19, 2012.
Councilmember Mavity stated the proposed ordinance bans beekeeping from multi-
family dwellings and indicated that places like Nordic Ware have generously provided
gardens, which need bees. She asked if these types of uses would be accommodated in
the ordinance and requested that the ordinance be amended to allow Nordic Ware or other
similar uses to have a beehive.
Councilmember Sanger indicated this issue can be reviewed between First and Second
Reading.
The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmembers Hallfin, Mavity, and Spano opposed;
Councilmember Santa absent).
8b. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and explained that the City is still in discussions
with Xcel Energy regarding new ordinance provisions and this ordinance extends the
current franchise for three months to give the City time to finish its discussions with Xcel
Energy. He indicated this extension will not impact the effective date of the revised
franchise fee, which will start with the March 2013 billing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Section 9-603
Extending the Term of the Northern States Power Company Franchise and to set Second
Reading for November 19, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Santa absent).
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Mobile Food Vehicles and
Catering
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and proposed zoning ordinance amendment to
allow mobile food vehicles and catering as an accessory use. He stated that the ordinance
was further amended following the First Reading in September to include performance
standards for signage, lighting, noise, hours of operation, overnight parking, and
prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. He advised the catering provisions contained
in the ordinance allow catering as an accessory use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zoning
Districts and would allow a catering company to use the kitchen to prepare food for
consumption at an event located off-site.
Councilmember Sanger requested confirmation that the food trucks cannot be parked on
City streets and can only be parked on public or private property with written permission.
Mr. Morrison stated it was correct that food trucks can only be parked on private or City
property with written permission.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to
Zoning by Amending Sections 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, NS 36-165 – Mobile Food
Vehicles and Catering and to set Second Reading for November 19, 2012.
The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Ross opposed; Councilmember Santa absent).
Councilmember Ross stated she does not have a problem with mobile food trucks but was
not in favor of allowing non-profit entities to rent out their kitchens to for-profit
businesses.
8d. Reconsider Vote taken by the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low
Density Residential for Eliot Park Apartments
Councilmember Spano stated that Council previously voted on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the rezoning of the Eliot School site from Civic to High Density and
Low Density Residential. He explained that he was raising the issue again because after
the vote was taken on October 15, 2012, it came to his attention that one of the pieces of
information considered by Council was not accurate, i.e., he had asked if any offers had
been made on the Eliot School property for a single family development and Mr. Clark
said there had been a few and he later learned from the School District that Mr. Clark's
statement was not accurate. He stated that a large part of the reason he voted against the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment was based on Mr. Clark's statement and he would like
Council to revisit this matter.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to reconsider
the vote taken by the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential for Eliot Park
Apartments.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2012
Councilmember Sanger stated the developer has indicated he would come back with his
revised plans and added she was not interested in having a discussion regarding
something Council has already discussed and voted on.
Councilmember Spano stated this was a material piece of information that was critical to
his vote and that information was not accurate and served as the foundation for his
opposition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He added that knowing the
statement was not accurate merits additional discussion by Council.
Councilmember Ross stated this issue will come back to study session for discussion by
Council and the developer will be there to clear up any confusion.
Councilmember Sanger requested Mr. Scott's opinion regarding the process for
reconsideration when the City Council has already voted on something.
Mr. Scott advised that matters can be brought up at the next meeting and a motion can be
made by anyone on the prevailing side of the original vote; in this case, the vote was 3-3
which meant the motion failed and Councilmember Spano, as one of the "no" votes,
would be on the prevailing side. He further advised it has to be brought up at the next
meeting by someone on the prevailing side who brings the motion and a majority vote is
required to pass that motion. He strongly recommended that Council not take action this
evening and that whatever action is taken be done at a future meeting. He explained that
the City is under time constraints unless the applicant waives those requirements, stating
that the 60 day rule has been continued to 120 days and the City is more than one month
away from the 120 day deadline to take action.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Santa absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents to vote on Tuesday, November 6th. He indicated
residents can register to vote at the polls and questions may be directed to the City Clerk's
office or the League of Women Voters. He expressed the City Council's thanks to the
various city officials who have provided assistance to the City during the City Clerk's
absence. He also thanked all of the election judges.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was saddened to report that Lyle Hanks recently passed away and
he extended the City Council's sympathies to Mr. Hanks's family.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 13, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Parks and
Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Recreation Superintendent (Mr. Birno), Community Liaison (Ms.
Olson), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
Guest: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Members Mr. Sandy Olevitch, Mr. Jim
Beneke, Mr. Gregg Lindberg, Mr. Tom Worthington, Ms. Karoline Pierson, Ms. Shirley
Zimmerman, and Mr. Mike Lamb from Cuningham Group Architecture.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 19 & November 26, 2012
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 19, 2012, and
the proposed study session agenda for November 26, 2012. He advised that the Highway 7 and
Louisiana Update will not be ready for discussion on November 19th and suggested moving the
discussion regarding the Eliot School Comp Plan Amendment before the City Council meeting.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was recently contacted by a veterinarian who has asked if the
City would be willing to consider the necessary ordinances that would permit him to have a
mobile clinic in which he would offer low cost vaccination services for pets and requested that
Council have a discussion regarding this.
Mr. Harmening agreed to add this item to a future study session agenda.
2. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Community Recreation Facility Task Force
Members Sandy Olevitch, Jim Beneke, Gregg Lindberg, Tom Worthington, Karoline Pierson,
Shirley Zimmerman, and Mike Lamb from Cuningham Group Architecture as well as Mr. Birno
and Ms. Olson.
Mr. Beneke recited the mission of the Community Recreation Facility Task Force, which served
as the foundation for the task force's work.
Mr. Worthington advised the Community Recreation Facility Task Force met ten times and
reviewed the community survey, toured a variety of community recreation facilities, and
discussed program needs and uses they felt were important for a community recreation facility.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
He stated that following the meeting with Council in June, the task force reviewed site selection
criteria and used a ranking process to select possible sites.
Mr. Sandy Olevitch stated the Community Recreation Facility Task Force suggests that program
components include a gymnasium, drop-in child care, community room, commons/large
gathering space, pool, water play area, walking track, fitness equipment, workout classes, indoor
playground equipment and parking.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that site selection criteria included convenience, easy access, near civic
gathering spaces, and safe location with good walking and bike paths. She indicated a high
priority was placed on aesthetics and green space and the task force wants the City to use
existing public land for any facility. She stated the task force wants a site that connects many
different destinations and is close to public transportation. She added the criteria also considered
redevelopment opportunities and blighted areas and the possibility of developing partnerships to
create the facility.
Ms. Pierson advised the task force reviewed twelve possible locations and went through a
ranking process to narrow the list down to five possible locations, which includes the Rec
Center/Wolfe Park, the former Bally's site, the area southwest of 36th and Highway 100
(American Legion site), Aquila Park, and the stadium field area by the school.
Mr. Lindberg discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the two options for the Rec
Center/Wolfe Park and stated that Candidate Site 1A would be on the Rec Center site with some
structured parking and the task force felt it would complement the current use of the site with
good access to trails and relatively central location. He stated that disadvantages include a need
for structured parking and the added cost. He advised that disadvantages of Candidate Site 1B
include the loss of synergy with the Rec Center given its location and the dangerous crossing at
Monterey. He stated that Candidate Site 2 includes great connections to public transportation
and this is a popular area of the City; disadvantages include availability of parking and the small
size of this site. He stated that Candidate Site 3 is located near public transportation as well as
the senior housing in this area; disadvantages include a requirement to purchase additional land
and pedestrian safety issues at 36th Street. He advised that advantages with the Aquila Park site
mimic the Rec Center site; disadvantages include relocating the tennis courts, concerns regarding
additional traffic in this residential area, and the impact on the annual fireworks event. He stated
the stadium field area site has considerable drawbacks and the task force felt this site should be
held from further consideration due to the significant issues that make feasibility of this site
questionable.
Ms. Walsh requested that Council acknowledge the other Community Recreation Facility Task
Force members, who regularly attended the meetings but are not present this evening, including
Laurie Hynes, Joel Odens, Chuck Souvignier, John Herbert, Lisa Greene, Mary Walters, and
Sophia Flumerfelt.
Councilmember Spano requested clarification regarding the task force's thought process
regarding a competition pool.
Ms. Walsh stated that the idea of a competitive pool was thoroughly discussed and the idea was
dismissed for several reasons. Competition pools are kept a cooler temperature and are not
conducive to community use. If there is a need for a competitive pool in the City, the task force
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
believes that it should be undertaken by the school district and located at their facility. She
stated the pool proposed in this facility needs further definition. The task force talked about a lap
swimming pool for fitness and would like Council to consider a water feature as part of a pool,
but not a competition pool. She added there may be a need for the School District to revamp
some of their facilities.
Councilmember Ross felt the task force did a good job on this and presented a thorough report.
She requested further information regarding the amount of land needed for a facility. She
indicated that residents in Ward 4 feel like everything is on the other side of town and not in her
ward. She also acknowledged that Ward 4 does not have a lot of space for this type of facility.
Ms. Pierson stated that the sites selected are closer to the City's population center and the task
force wanted to make sure a facility was close to trails and easily accessible for everyone, adding
that if a facility were located in the northwest corner of the City it would be harder to draw
people into that location. She stated that the task force does not see this facility as a Ward issue
but rather a community issue. She indicated the need to build in a location where the community
would best use it, and synergy with other facilities is more important than the exact location.
Ms. Walsh stated the task force talked a lot about drawing people from all areas of the City and
felt the sites that they selected would be easily accessible for everyone. She advised that the
facility would be a two-acre site and might include a two-story building that builds on the
gathering place component as well as the Rec Center components.
Councilmember Santa stated she was pleased with the thoroughness of the task force's work.
She asked about the anticipated lifespan of the Rec Center site and how a new facility will
energize or revitalize the current Rec Center.
Ms. Pierson stated the task force wants the facility to be a family friendly destination with a
community room feel and felt the Rec Center site offers activities that are close by.
Councilmember Hallfin commended the task force for its work on this project and expressed
appreciation for their time.
Councilmember Sanger thanked the task force for all their hard work and thoughtful analysis.
She expressed some concern regarding the proposed location stating she felt the list of criteria
was too constrained. She stated she was not sure why site selection was limited to public land
and felt consideration should be given to developing some blighted private parcels. She stated
she was not a fan of putting a facility by the Rec Center and did not agree with taking part of
Wolfe Park. She stated she liked the Aquila Park site and also liked the idea of a facility in the
Texa Tonka area. She agreed the facility needs to be accessible but did not think the City should
count on people being able to take light rail to get to the facility, particularly when nobody will
take public transit to drop in for half an hour. She stated she would rather see a facility located
along the #17 bus line because that covers the most neighborhoods and hoped Council could
have further discussion about that. She agreed the facility should be multi-generational and was
hopeful that Lenox could be merged with the facility. She added she really liked the Chaska
model and felt the task force report provided a great starting point for the City.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
Ms. Walsh stated that the Lenox model has some successful components but does not represent
what the future will be for baby boomers adding if you set aside space for a specific age group
that space does not get used a lot of the time.
Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation for all the work the task force members put into
this project. She requested further information regarding programming and stated she would like
to see this modeled to make sure the facility has the space to draw in the kinds of use and crowds
the City wants.
Ms. Walsh advised that the next phase would include modeling and further detail about how each
space could get used.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that the Texa Tonka area could use a refresher but urged Council
to remember that these areas sustain local businesses and local jobs and felt the City needs to be
a little cautious about how it approaches redeveloping a blighted area for this type of use.
Mr. Lindberg stated that the task force considered the Texa Tonka site but the program needs did
not fit on this site. That site was discussed and eliminated for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Harmening stated the work of the Community Recreation Facility Task Force has been
completed and suggested that Council have a study session discussion in December to discuss
program components, site analysis, financial considerations, and operational impacts. He also
suggested that the City request community input after its study session discussion in December.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Community Recreation Facility Task Force members for all their
great work.
3. Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and thanked Mr. Locke and Ms. McMonigal and their
team for reviewing and summarizing the DEIS in preparation for submitting comments to the
County by December 11th. He stated that Council will have an opportunity at the November 26th
study session to further review the City's comments with final approval by Council on December
3rd or December 10th.
Mr. Locke stated that the issue of freight rail operations on the MN&S tracks and the challenges
that the current MN&S design creates for freight trains needs to be expanded upon as well as
what that means for the City in terms of noise issues and viability of the route.
Councilmember Spano stated the DEIS indicates that the focus is metro transit planning not what
is in St. Louis Park's best interests and he did not see a discussion of mitigation anywhere in the
DEIS. He indicated if Met Council decides to co-locate or reroute, there are going to be safety
issues and none of those safety issues are addressed in the DEIS. He stated the DEIS does not
address the wye, grade separation, or safety at the school.
Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Spano's comments and stated there is a
glaring omission in the DEIS regarding costs and the cost to reroute. She stated the DEIS
contains no real costs associated with mitigation, impact to businesses, and the taking of homes
and added she was not sure how the County could create a study and not talk about money. She
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
indicated the DEIS talks about co-location at various points primarily west of 169 but did not
understand how is it you can co-locate there and not in St. Louis Park. She added she did not
understand how these discussions about rail lines could be taking place when the railroads are
not at the table and felt the biggest stakeholder should be at the table.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmembers Spano and Ross and stated the area she
focused on is community cohesion and the quality of life goal. She indicated the DEIS talks
about the significant impact of co-location but there is nothing about what it does to St. Louis
Park, adding that her theory is if you say there is no impact that means there is no money for
mitigation and she was concerned about that. She stated that the rerouting quarters the
community because it cuts off the community from the schools as well as residential areas,
businesses, and parks. She stated the community impacts are significant and the DEIS does not
indicate whether they have looked at these impacts, which could mean if they are not looking at
these impacts they are not going to mitigate.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the comments regarding mitigation. He stated there appears
to be a $122 million difference between the cost comparisons which means co-location of trains
would cost $122 million less if they do the reroute but there are no numbers to back it up and he
wants to see numbers. He stated one of the big pieces in the Kenilworth corridor is a 60-unit
building they do not want to tear down which might add more cost not currently in their budget.
He questioned whether the County has looked at mitigation to parks and stated he would like
more answers regarding park land.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with all of the previous comments and stated the only mitigation
offering was the whistle quiet zone but the railroads have said they have to blow their horns there
because there are blind S curves. She stated the DEIS has to address noise issues and vibration
in addition to all the other mitigation. She stated the DEIS indicates co-location is not possible
because five studies said it was not possible but there was apparently no analysis of the City's
position regarding co-location and the County appears to have dismissed what the City has said.
She stated none of the studies looked at the question of moving the bike trail and felt this needs
to be addressed, particularly if the bike trail is moved and park land is taken. She agreed that the
City's comments need to focus on freight rail operations and the question of how do trains go
south noting that the DEIS does not propose to take out the wye and proposes to run trains north
around a loop on a new siding on the BN tracks then turn around and go back south through the
neighborhoods but the railroads have said they will not do that. She referenced the comment in
the DEIS that asserts the benefits of light rail outweigh the negative impacts of the reroute and
there is no criteria for how they reached that conclusion, including no analysis of traffic in St.
Louis Park, how it divides neighborhoods, and trains blocking intersections. She stated there is
also nothing in the DEIS that talks about operating agreements with the railroads or how all this
works operationally and she would like those arrangements made public or, if agreements have
not been reached, she would like to know why. She stated the City also needs to know if the
County is going to pay the railroads a lot of money to get them to agree. She stated that a lot of
the DEIS document was lifted from the EAW without additional analysis. She stated the EAW
was vacated and asked what the legal status of the EAW is because it has been vacated. She
asked if the County can rely on the EAW and if so, whether the County has to take into account
all the prior comments to the EAW. She also asked what happens if trains are rerouted and a
derailment occurs and whether St. Louis Park would be held responsible for a derailment.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
Councilmember Mavity agreed with the previous comments and stated she would like more
information about the 6th goal regarding construction impacts. She stated the safety issues at
Wooddale are a significant concern as well as the traffic projections for the crossings. She stated
one of the City's priorities has been to remove the wye and stated co-location does not address
the goal of removing the wye. She stated mitigation during and after construction needs to be
addressed and urged the City to make sure it considers the impact on businesses both during and
after construction.
Mayor Jacobs agreed with all the previous comments and stated the biggest issue for him is
mitigation which the DEIS does not address. He shared Councilmember Ross's concern that the
railroads are not at the table. He stated he would like more detail on the cost comparison and
would like to see more analysis on the traffic implications adding that the DEIS does not address
the issue of trains blocking intersections.
Councilmember Spano stated there are going to be significant issues whether freight rail is co-
located or rerouted and urged the City to make sure it has a robust list of impacts to the
community and mitigation for those impacts.
Councilmember Ross stated she was particularly concerned about the impact to schools not only
from vibration and noise but the impact from blocked intersections.
Councilmember Santa reiterated her concern that if the DEIS does not indicate there is going to
be a problem then there is no impact and if there is no impact, there is no mitigation. She stated
she needed to see more about mitigation for homes, businesses, and schools both during and after
construction to make sure there is realistic mitigation over a long period of time.
Councilmember Sanger stated the DEIS does not mention creation of a buffer as mitigation for
the reroute. She stated the DEIS does not contain a plan for the taking of homes including
criteria for taking homes.
Councilmember Mavity stated that light rail itself requires sound mitigation with so much
housing around the light rail stations, particularly Wooddale, and she would like to make sure the
mitigation needed around the light rail stations is captured in the DEIS. She stated that the buffer
issue involves a lot of policy issues for Council and suggested that Council create a placeholder
to have a discussion later on this issue.
Councilmember Sanger stated that mitigation at the light rail stations will come from the light
rail budget whether or not the trains are rerouted and the City needs to be very clear that things
that have to be done at the light rail stations are not just mitigation for the reroute and are needed
for the stations no matter what.
Mr. Harmening stated the County is holding a public hearing on Wednesday, November 14th, at
5:00 p.m. at City Hall and Commissioners Dorfman, McLaughlin, and Callison will be attending.
He stated there will be no formal presentation and speakers will be given three minutes each. He
asked if the City should make an opening statement.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct Mr. Harmening to present opening remarks at
the November 14th public hearing and to reference the City's official position regarding light rail
and freight rail.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2012
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appointments
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity (arrived at 7:28 p.m.),
Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Dan Hunt (Hunt Associates).
1. Highway 100 Reconstruction Update
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration.
Councilmember Spano stated he would prefer a 5' width for the bike path but the proposed 4'
width is acceptable. He stated he would be okay with someone relocating the rocks out of the
Rock Garden. He stated his agreement with how the City will cast its vote regarding the noise
wall. He stated he would defer to the rest of Council regarding any special mailing to residents
regarding Municipal Consent.
Councilmember Hallfin requested clarification regarding the cost to install the bike lane and
whether the cost to install a 5' wide bike lane would add an additional $125,000.
Mr. Harmening explained that the cost is $125,000 for each additional foot added to each side
and if the City installed a 6' wide bike lane the cost would be $250,000 total.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would have no objection to adding $125,000 to the cost of the
project in order to make sure bikes are safe and was agreeable to a 5' wide bike lane. He stated
the Rock Garden is very old and the Historical Society has indicated it has no interest in it but if
there was a group that wanted to do something with it, he would be fine with that adding if it is
the will of the Council to do nothing with the Rock Garden, he was fine with that as well.
Councilmember Santa stated she could not comment on the bike lane width and preferred to
defer to others based on the input previously received by Council. She stated she did not feel the
Rock Garden was worth saving adding she did not want to see any City money put into
preserving it. She stated her agreement with how the City will cast its vote regarding the noise
wall and stated she had no concerns regarding the process for Municipal Consent.
Councilmember Ross stated she would prefer a 5' wide bike lane and asked if a 5' wide bike lane
would provide enough clearance for recumbent bikes.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
A resident in the audience nodded his head indicating a 5' wide bike lane would provide enough
clearance for recumbent bikes.
Councilmember Ross stated she would be okay with a group of residents preserving the Rock
Garden but did not want to put any City dollars into preserving it. She stated her agreement with
how the City will cast its vote regarding the noise wall and had no concerns regarding the
process for Municipal Consent.
Councilmember Spano noted that the proposed width of the bike lane is 4' and asked if 4' is
sufficient for recumbent bikes.
Mr. George Hagemann approached the City Council and indicated the proposed 4' width is
acceptable adding that State guidelines indicate 5' is acceptable.
Councilmember Sanger stated that a 5' wide bike lane was preferable and was okay with the City
spending an additional $125,000 to that width. She asked if there was any way to reduce the
current 10' trail on each side by one foot and using that extra foot to widen the bike lane to 5'.
Mr. Rardin advised he spoke with Mr. Jim Grube at Mn/DOT regarding this who indicated that
the County will not support narrowing the trail from a 10' width.
Councilmember Sanger felt the City should install a 5' wide bike lane on each side. She agreed
the Rock Garden cannot be reconstructed in its current location and some effort could be made to
save the rocks and reconstruct the Rock Garden to the extent possible. She stated there are five
affected properties on Toledo Avenue south of Minnetonka Boulevard who will get to vote on
the noise walls; one property owner has said they want the noise walls but she did not know how
the other property owners would vote. She indicated she understood from Ms. Crockett that the
City's votes on the bike trail are due at the same time as the votes of those five property owners
and was not sure how the City would determine whether these property owners want the noise
wall in time to cast its vote.
Mr. Brink indicated the City intends to reach out to this neighborhood and meet with them to
gauge their sentiment on the noise wall.
Councilmember Sanger stated that unless the City hears that these property owners do not want
the noise wall she would prefer to leave them in. She stated her agreement with the process for
Municipal Consent and requested clarification regarding a special mailing to area residents.
Mr. Rardin stated that past practice for Council meetings is not to send a special notice but given
the high profile and significant public input on this project Council may wish to send a special
mailing to those residents who have been notified in the past.
Councilmember Ross noted that the City's website will contain information regarding Council's
action on Municipal Consent.
Mayor Jacobs stated he preferred a 5' wide bike lane and was okay with spending the additional
money to get a 6' wide bike lane. He stated the Rock Garden is in tough shape and did not agree
with spending any City money to preserve it. He stated he preferred to defer to the residents
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
regarding the noise wall and saw no reason not to go forward on December 3rd with action
regarding Municipal Consent.
Mr. Harmening expressed frustration that the City will have to pay for any additional width on
the bike lane since this is a County road and the County has been very inflexible on this issue.
He stated the City will move forward with a 5' wide bike lane with the understanding that the
City might have to pay for it but the City will continue to ask the County to pay for it. He stated
he appreciated that some residents want to preserve the Rock Garden but the Historical Society
has made it clear they have no interest in it and there does not appear to be an organization that
wants to find a home for the Rock Garden and the City's assessment is that it is not worth saving.
Councilmember Sanger asked Ms. Diane Steen-Hinderlie if she was aware of any group that
might be able to put the time or effort into preserving the Rock Garden.
Ms. Steen-Hinderlie approached the City Council and stated the Rock Garden has been neglected
for a couple of decades and they would have to educate the community about the Rock Garden.
She indicated the Historical Society has agreed to let them write an article for the Re-Echo
regarding the Rock Garden to see what ideas people might have for preserving it.
Mayor Jacobs felt it should be left to residents to come up with a plan for preserving and
relocating the Rock Garden.
It was the consensus of the City Council to install a minimum 5' striped shoulder on the
Minnetonka Boulevard bridge and to seek payment from the County for the additional bike lane
width. It was also the consensus of the City Council that the City should not expend staff
resources or money to preserve the Rock Garden. It was also the consensus of the City Council
to cast the City's votes for the noise wall south of Minnetonka Boulevard as proposed in the staff
report. It was also the consensus of the City Council to schedule consideration of Municipal
Consent for the Council meeting on December 3, 2012.
An audience member approached the City Council and stated his house is the only one that will
lose value because of the reconstruction. He stated the project will take away his parking and the
on-ramp will be right in front of his house.
Mr. Rardin indicated the project will not change any of the street widths or sidewalks and trails
in the vicinity of this audience member's home and the only change will be access to the
highway. He stated the City engaged in an extensive public process for this project.
Mayor Jacobs recessed the Special Study Session at 7:29 p.m. in order to convene the City
Council meeting.
Mayor Jacobs reconvened the Special Study Session at 8:53 p.m.
Update Regarding Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Vote on FAA Plan
Mayor Jacobs introduced Commissioner Lisa Peilen from the Metropolitan Airports
Commission.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
Commissioner Peilen updated Council on the MAC decision earlier today with respect to the
FAA's proposal to change flight paths that would impact areas of St. Louis Park. She explained
the actual number of flights over Edina would have decreased from 440 to 308 under the FAA's
proposal but those flights would have been concentrated in a much narrower band. She stated
there was an unprecedented outpouring from residents on this issue and Commissioner Foster
made a motion to support the FAA's proposal with the exception of what happens on runways
30R and 30L. She advised the motion was adopted with one abstaining and one "no" vote
adding that she abstained because she represents Edina and part of Minneapolis that are opposed
to the proposal and she also represents parts of Richfield that support the proposal; the vote on
the proposal was acceptable to Edina and Minneapolis. She advised it is unclear whether the
FAA will roll out the proposal in the spring without the letter of support from the MAC and the
proposal could be delayed to 2014. She added she would be happy to give a presentation to the
City to help residents understand the impact of the FAA's proposal.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the FAA could go ahead with its proposal without MAC
consent.
Commissioner Peilen stated it was her understanding the FAA has the power to move forward
but did not believe that would happen and indicated the FAA representative told her the FAA
wanted the letter of support from MAC.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Commissioner Peilen for the update and requested that she schedule a
time to present information to the City regarding the FAA's proposal and its impact on the City.
2. Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density
and Low Density Residential for Former Eliot School Site
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and advised that Council needs to put this item on its agenda
in a timely fashion for action following the vote to reconsider the action taken on October 15th.
He also stated it was important to understand that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be
followed by a zoning amendment and PUD approvals; and all of these actions need to take place
in order for a project to be developed on this site.
Mr. Dan Hunt, Hunt Associates, appeared before the City Council and stated they felt they met
most of the design guidelines by proposing a building that fit into the neighborhood and advised
that they have modified the plan by adding six three-bedroom units and reducing the total
housing units from 147 to 141 which still leaves them higher than 30 units per acre. He stated if
Council requires 30 units per acre or a total of 129 dwelling units on the site then they will be
unable to add the three single-family lots because it uses up too much land. They would only
have room for 129 units of apartments. He explained the original plan had 147 total housing
units with an overall density of 34.5 units per acre; the apartment portion has 38 units per acre
and the three single lots are six units per acre. He stated the current proposal has a total of 141
housing units with a density of 33 units per acre; the apartment portion has 36.6 units per acre
and the three single lots remain at six. He indicated that they are asking for the High Density
Residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate both 3 single-family lots
and 138 units of apartments in two buildings for a total of 141 units on the site and an average
density of 33 units per acre.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
Mr. Locke explained the calculation for the site is 4.3 acres times 30 units per acre, which results
in 129 units. He stated if the developer takes the north portion of the site and turns it into three
single family lots, the apartment site is the remainder of the parcel. If you put 126 apartments on
that portion of the site, the density is higher than 30 units per acre because it is technically sitting
on a smaller parcel. He advised that if Council wanted single family homes on the north end of
the site, the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan would have to be High Density even
though the site would be zoned something much less than high density. He explained that before
anything can be built on the site, Council must approve one of the land use designations for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and later also approve a zoning designation for the site. An
appropriate zone for the site is R4, which allows 30 units per acre.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the land use designation could be changed back to Civic if for some
reason the developer does not follow through with his proposal after the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is approved.
Mr. Locke replied in the affirmative and stated the City would not rezone the site until it had a
full development proposal and Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Councilmember Ross indicated a similar issue came up in another area where the zoning was
changed then the owner sold the business and plans for the site changed. She asked if the City
could get something written in a contract that if the developer goes away the site would
automatically revert back to its original use.
Mr. Harmening replied that it would have to go through the normal process.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that changing the Comprehensive Plan does not
commit the City to any particular zoning district and if the City approved an R4 zoning, that
would be 30 units per acre without a PUD to go above that amount, or the equivalent of Medium
Density and to go above that amount the developer would need to obtain PUD approval.
Mr. Locke stated that this was correct and added the rezoning and PUD would be done
simultaneously through the public process.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the revised proposal would still have the same building footprint
design and size and include the same amount of green space.
Mr. Hunt stated the revised proposal uses the same footprint and includes three single-family lots
and 138 apartment units in two buildings as well as the addition of six three-bedroom units in the
two buildings. He indicated the original proposal had a number of large two-bedroom units and
six of those units were converted to three-bedroom units.
Councilmember Spano stated one of the key pieces of information presented at the October 15th
Council meeting had to do with whether any developers had expressed an interest in developing
single-family units on the site. He had asked at the October 15th meeting if there had been any
offers presented and the response from Mr. Clark was that there were a few. He stated Mr.
Clark's response was important in his decision-making process and added that a School Board
member has since indicated to him that there have not been any offers presented for the site.
Mr. Locke stated there were inquiries but he was not aware of any offers being made for the site.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
Mr. Garfield Clark approached the City Council on behalf of the School District and stated the
question he responded to at the October 15th Council meeting was whether there was any interest
and there were a "couple." He stated his response to the question of whether there was interest
would be "yes" and his response to the question of whether a Purchase Agreement was entered
into would be "no."
Councilmember Spano stated that given the fact that there were no offers for a single family
development and given the fact that Mr. Hunt has decreased the density, he would be okay with
approving the High Density Residential land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan with the
understanding that the City has mechanisms in place to limit the total number of units on the site.
Councilmember Mavity stated she liked the revised proposal and felt it fits with the guidelines.
She indicated her concern that the guidelines say medium density housing and the City and
Council needs to be clear with this developer that the guidelines say medium density. She stated
the City has a lot of land coming under development and she did not want to go through this
again and did not want to see a situation where the City amends the Comprehensive Plan to
expand the site's potential and raise expectations in the community that that is what this land will
be used for only to have the developer go away and someone else comes in asking for 50 units
per acre. She indicated the proposed design has followed the spirit of the design guidelines and
she was comfortable with 33 units per acre.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if two single-family homes could be constructed on the site
instead of three to make the land equation work for medium density.
Mr. Hunt replied they would pick up some land but not enough because the density is so low on
the single-family lots.
Mr. Locke agreed to further explore reducing the number or size of the single-family lots and its
impact on the Medium Density land use designation.
Councilmember Santa stated she was still uncertain but cautiously optimistic about the proposal
and it was important to her that Council honors the wishes of the neighborhood. She stated the
neighborhood said they wanted medium density and they want to see home ownership. She
indicated she was interested in seeing three-bedroom apartments that are larger and she wants to
see a project that is conducive to families.
Councilmember Sanger stated she appreciated that the developer has made changes and did not
want to see less than three single-family homes on this site. She indicated if Council wants more
single-family housing it may need to have a discussion about whether it is willing to put TIF
financing into building more single family housing in the City. She stated she would like to see
some analysis done by staff on what it would take to do TIF financing on this site in order to
have more single-family houses. She felt that the School District and developer had decided the
highest and best use of this land but this is the City's decision to make and felt the negotiated sale
price was too high and wondered if a project could be built on the site that was more within the
design guidelines in terms of medium density with single family homes if the sale price were
renegotiated. She expressed concerns about the developer's likely TIF financing request and did
not know if she could support TIF financing for the site.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 7
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2012
Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Sanger's concerns regarding TIF financing
but felt it was premature to make a judgment regarding this until Council knows what will be
built on the site. She stated the developer has presented a proposal that meets the majority of the
design guidelines and she was okay with the High Density land use designation in the
Comprehensive Plan knowing that Council has the ability to stop this later if necessary and has
the power to say the site will not go over 33 units per acre.
Mayor Jacobs expressed support for amending the Comprehensive Plan with the understanding
that Council retains control of the future zoning on the site.
It was the consensus of the City Council to reconsider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on
December 17, 2012.
The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Administrative Services Intern (Mr. French), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-165 authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance
renewal for December 1, 2012 – November 30, 2013.
4b. Approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2425-12 amending Xcel's
franchise ordinance #2086-97 and authorize publication in full.
4c. Authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2013 Boulevard
Tree Pruning contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-166 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Leslie Marcus in the amount of $100 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 12-167 approving acceptance of a grant from the St. Louis
Park Youth Development Fund of the St. Louis Park Community
Foundation/Minnesota Community Foundation in the amount of $2,500 for use by
the Parks and Recreation Department for the summer playground program.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
4f. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2012.
4g. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of September 25,
2012.
4h. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes of October 10, 2012.
4i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Brewer Taproom License – Steel Toe Brewing, LLC
Mr. French presented the staff report and explained the City received an application from
Mr. Jason Schoneman for a taproom license for his microbrewery at 4848 West 35th
Street. He indicated the premises will consist of 688 square feet and include seating for
30. He stated taprooms licensed in Minnesota are allowed to sell their malt liquor
produced for consumption on the premises with the approval of the municipality.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve application from Steel Toe Brewing, LLC for a brewer taproom license to be
located at 4848 West 35th Street, with the license term through March 1, 2013.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Public Hearing – 2013 Liquor License Fees. Resolution No. 12-168
Mr. French presented the staff report and explained that City ordinance permits the City
to set liquor fees by resolution and where there is no State restriction a city can set the fee
at an amount to reflect the cost of issuing the license and other costs directly related to
enforcement. He noted the proposed 2013 fees reflect no increase from 2012 and the fee
amounts continue to reflect administrative costs and public safety enforcement and are
comparable to other similarly sized cities.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Spano requested clarification regarding the statement that the proposed
fees reflect "… increased costs of providing administration and enforcement," noting that
the 2013 fees do not reflect any increase.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
Mr. French clarified that there are no increased costs for providing administration and
enforcement and the word "increased" is a typographical error.
Councilmember Spano asked if Steel Toe Brewery will be charged $200 or $600 for its
brewer taproom license and asked if the City charges any license fees on a pro rata basis.
Mr. French stated the City does charge liquor license fees on a pro rata basis for new
licensees, and the taproom license fee for Steel Toe Brewery will be $200 if the taproom
begins operation in November.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-168 Adopting 2013 Liquor License Fees for the License Term March
1, 2013 – March 1, 2014.
The motion passed 7-0.
6c. Zoning Determination Appeal – Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road.
Resolution No. 12-169
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and provided historical background of the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to uphold staff's determination (1) that the windows
in the tree house facing the neighboring property are not located on the second story, (2)
that the tree house is not taller than the house, (3) that the deck on the tree house
conforms to setback requirements, and (4) that the tree house is not built in a utility
easement. He stated that the appeal of staff determination numbers (1) and (2) were not
timely and explained that on June 21, 2012, staff notified Mr. Hagen by email of its
determination that the tree house complies with the height requirements and on June 22,
2012, staff notified Mr. Hagen by email of its determination that the windows comply
with zoning; on August 14, 2012, Mr. Hagen appealed staff's determination and at the
BOZA hearing, Mr. Hagen submitted an email that he wrote on June 26, 2012, but this
email does not constitute an appeal. He stated that written notice of an appeal triggers the
appeal process and comments such as those contained in Mr. Hagen's June 26 email
cannot be used to extend the 20-day deadline for appeal. He explained that staff found
the deck to be a component of the accessory building and is subject to accessory building
setbacks and not to principal building setbacks and the section of the Code cited by Mr.
Hagen is incorrect. He indicated that BOZA agreed with staff and denied Mr. Hagen's
appeal on this item. He stated that staff's determination that the tree house is not built in
a utility easement is supported by the plat of the property showing no easements recorded
with the plat. He stated there are no drainage easements on this property and if any
easement exists, it is a private utility easement not dedicated to the City and the City does
not enforce private easements. He noted that the City pursued this further with Xcel
Energy and their determination was that it is their easement but did not find a violation
and Xcel Energy was not willing to pursue it further; as a result, staff concluded this was
not a zoning matter and not subject to the appeal process; BOZA agreed.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road, appeared before the City Council and
introduced his attorney, Mr. Rich Gabriel. He presented several photographs of the tree
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
house and stated the tree house is an eyesore and violates four City ordinances. He
indicated he agreed with the zoning determination regarding the deck but this structure
was built without a permit, was built in a perpetual utility easement, and violates height
restrictions and window location. He stated that Ordinance Section 36-163(7) indicates
all accessory buildings 120 square feet or less shall obtain a zoning or building permit
prior to installation and this structure was built on April 12 by an unlicensed contractor
with no permit. He stated the permit was eventually submitted by the homeowner on
September 20, 2012, and presented a copy of the permit application which lists "Jeremy
Joseph," whose real name is Jeremy Joseph Koebe as the homeowner on the property.
He questioned how the City could approve a structure that has not pulled a permit. He
stated the tree house is built in an easement and Section 36-162(d)(1)(e) states that no
accessory building shall be located in a drainage or utility easement without first
obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement; no such agreement exists. He stated
because this is Torrens property, the easement was put in the title in 1947. He presented
the City's definition of easement in the Zoning Ordinance and presented a copy of the
certificate of title furnished by Xcel Energy for 4215 Cedarwood Road, which states the
property is subject to an easement of the last 5' for utility installation and maintenance
and noted the certificate of title states it is a perpetual easement. He stated he called the
Public Utilities Commission and was told that because there are multiple utilities it is the
City's responsibility to enforce the easements. He recited Section 36-162 regarding
height restrictions for accessory buildings which says all structures shall be lower than
the highest roof line of the principal building noting this structure is 4-5' higher than the
highest roof line of the home; City s taff measured 19' 8" but he measured it to be 22' 9.5".
He stated the window located on the back that faces Basswood Road is a violation of City
Code. He questioned why the City has ordinances and why those ordinances were not
enforced. He also questioned why someone from City Hall did not inform him of his
appeal rights, adding he emailed Mr. Morrison, Ms. McMonigal, Mr. Harmening, Mayor
Jacobs and Councilmember Sanger stating his objection to the height and windows,
which he felt was done in a timely manner and within four days of when he received the
City's letter. He recited City Code Section 36-31(d) regarding his right to appeal but he
did not know about this 20-day rule. He noted that this rule also says "from the date of
permit" which would be September 20th; he objected by email on June 26, 2012. He
stated nobody talked about his July 17th letter to Mr. Harmening with a copy to
Councilmember Sanger, which was his formal appeal letter. He questioned when the 20
days starts and whether it counts calendar days or work days. He presented a letter from
a realtor and a letter from an appraiser stating this structure devalues his property; Mr.
Austen Cargill also wrote a letter opposing the structure. He stated his privacy is gone
and presented several pictures of the structure taken from his bathroom and bedroom
windows. He requested that the City Council find that he appealed in a timely manner
and to enforce its ordinances to bring this structure into code compliance and to give him
back his privacy and restore the value of his home.
Mr. Richard Gabriel, attorney for Mr. Hagen, appeared before the City Council and stated
that in his opinion the easement exists and should be enforced according to the City
Code. He urged the City to bring the tree house into compliance on the height issue so
that the tree house will not be an eyesore and to bring the tree house into compliance with
setback limitations. He felt that City staff made a mistake in approving this and now
finds itself in an awkward position because City staff should not have given approval.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
Mr. David Gottlieb, attorney for Mr. Ken Fink, appeared before the City Council and
stated he did not think the City made a mistake. He stated the tree house did not go up in
a day but took several weeks and Mr. Hagen watched the tree house go up from the
comfort of his home and never said a word to the City or to the contractor or Mr. Fink.
He felt the reason Mr. Hagen objected was because someone notified the City that there
was a shed on Mr. Hagen's property that was not in compliance and should be moved and
that upset Mr. Hagen who called the City in retaliation. He indicated there is bad history
between Mr. Hagen and the Finks but that does not mean the City should involve itself.
He stated Mr. Hagen has sued the Finks in civil court and lost, Mr. Hagen has repeatedly
called the police, and Mr. Hagen has tried to enlist the utility company in his efforts but
they have declined. He stated this is a private dispute between neighbors who do not like
each other and for the City to become involved does not make sense, particularly when
the law supports the BOZA determination. He stated the claim was not timely filed and
pointed out that Mr. Hagen became aware of the City's decision on June 26 but took 53
days to appeal the City's decision. He felt the appeal was time barred and noted that Mr.
Hagen does not cite a single legal authority. He stated it is undisputed that the house is
23', the tree house is 19' 8", and it is undisputed that the house is higher than the tree
house. He stated the City's ordinance does not speak in terms of elevation of structures
but speaks in terms of the height of a structure and there is no violation. He stated the
utility company is saying this is a private dispute and will not get involved. He noted that
Mr. Fink has been working with the City since April to make sure the tree house is in
compliance and to ask him to take it down is unfair and embroils the City in a
neighborhood dispute that further empowers Mr. Hagen to bully the neighborhood,
including his most recent efforts to have a dozen sheds moved after his shed was required
to be moved. He also presented three letters from neighbors who indicate that Mr.
Hagen's statement that the tree house has devalued his house is not true.
Mr. Hagen stated that he did not watch the tree house go up because he was gone from
April 24 to May 2 and when he saw the structure he called City Hall. He indicated no
one is looking at his July 17th appeal letter, which was within 20 days, and BOZA only
found he was not timely on the height issue.
Ms. Sharon Feinstein Rosenblum, 4200 Basswood, appeared before the City Council and
stated her husband wrote a letter to the City indicating the tree house was not an issue
when they were considering whether to buy their house.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger requested advice regarding the comment made that it was
undisputed the permit for the tree house was not pulled until several months after it was
constructed and asked what the remedy is for failure to pull a permit on time.
Mr. Scott explained that this project required a zoning permit and no building permit was
required because the tree house is less than 120 square feet. He stated the zoning permit
is intended to confirm that the structure is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and
the issue here is staff's interpretation about whether the structure complies with the City's
zoning. He indicated the issue of whether a zoning permit was issued prior to or after the
structure begs the question of whether it complies with the zoning ordinance and as a
practical matter there is no remedy for not having the permit issued in a timely manner.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
Councilmember Sanger indicated that Mr. Hagen referenced the ordinance requiring
appeals to be filed within 20 days of certain events, one of which is the permit. She
asked Mr. Scott's interpretation of when the 20 days starts to run and whether a person
has 20 days from a given event, such as a staff determination.
Mr. Scott advised that in this case the City's interpretation was that the 20 days started to
run from June 21 on the issue of height, which was the date of the email to Mr. Hagen
with staff's final determination regarding compliance with the height ordinance. He
indicated the next day, June 22, is not disputed by Mr. Hagen and was the date of the
email from Mr. Morrison regarding the City's interpretation of the window issue. He
stated the 20 days started to run on those two staff interpretations on those two particular
days. He indicated there was a later request for a staff determination on the deck issue,
which has been withdrawn, and the other determination had to do with the utility
easement. He stated there can be many different questions requiring a staff interpretation
on a project and until someone makes a formal appeal to BOZA the City does not trigger
the 20 day time limits. He stated in this case, June 21 is when the final determination was
made by staff on the height issue and June 22 is when the final determination was made
by staff on the window issue and those are the dates that triggered the 20 days. He
explained that as a general rule if a time period is less than seven days then business days
are counted but if the time period is longer, calendar days are typically counted. He
stated the 20 day time limit in this case would be counted using calendar days; the BOZA
appeal was August 14, well beyond the 20 days whether business days or calendar days
were counted. He stated that the final determination by Mr. Morrison on June 21 and 22
did not state that Mr. Hagen had 20 days to appeal to BOZA and he was not aware of any
legal requirement to do so.
Councilmember Sanger asked if an easement exists that is subject to City enforcement.
Mr. Scott advised it is undisputed that if an easement exists on the property it is not a
public utility easement and the City does not control the easement because it is a private
easement. He noted that Xcel Energy is apparently not objecting and not taking any
action and the findings state that the City does not attempt to enforce private easements;
in addition, the City does not want to get into the business of trying to interpret covenants
and easements when it is not a City easement. He stated he views this as an enforcement
issue and advised the City should not enforce potential encroachments on private
easements because it is not a City easement and is not an issue to be determined by
BOZA or the City Council.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the June 21 time frame
and its relationship to the issuance of the zoning permit.
Mr. Scott advised there is no question that the zoning permit should have been issued
before the structure was built and the role of the zoning permit is to make sure the
structure complies with the zoning ordinance and to determine whether a building permit
is needed. He stated that did not happen in this case but the real issue is whether the
structure complies with the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger felt that Council was constrained and required to follow the law
that transcends and supersedes personal issues. She agreed that the appeal on the issue of
height and window placement was not timely and she also agreed there is no utility
easement enforceable by the City requiring action.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-169 Denying the Appeal of Peter Hagen of the Board of Zoning
Appeals' Decision.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Food Trucks and Catering –
Second Reading. Ordinance No. 2426-12
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for
second reading.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2426-12 Amending the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning by Amending Sections 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164,
and 36-165 – Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Ross opposed).
Councilmember Ross stated she does not have a problem with mobile food trucks but was
not in favor of allowing non-profit entities to rent out their kitchens to for-profit
businesses.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked the County Board of Commissioners for sponsoring the light rail
public hearing last week. He stated it was a well-attended meeting that was for the most
part civil and respectful but was dismayed by some of the antics of residents and
apologized to Commissioners Callison, Dorfman, and McLaughlin for the acts of a few
residents. He stated he was also dismayed by some of the comments made when some
residents stood up and voiced their opinions and indicated no one should be made to feel
intimated to give their opinion.
Councilmember Mavity congratulated the City for having the second highest voter
turnout in the State and stated some precincts had over 90% turnout.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 7405 Edgebrook Drive
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 7405 Edgebrook Drive, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0068.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Carah Foster, owner of the single family residence at 7405 Edgebrook Drive, has requested the City to
authorize the repair of the water service line for her home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $2,345.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 7405 Edgebrook Drive
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
7405 EDGEBROOK DRIVE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0068
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 7405 Edgebrook Drive has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single
family residence located at 7405 Edgebrook Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,345.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3253 Webster Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3253 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0021.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
William Tepley, owner of the single family residence at 3253 Webster Avenue South, has requested
the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $4,445.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 3253 Webster Ave So
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3253 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0021
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3253 Webster Avenue South has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 3253 Webster Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $4,445.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 1624 Jersey Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 1624 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 05-117-21-43-0078.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Mala and Pooran Parmessar, owners of the single family residence at 1624 Jersey Avenue South, have
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the cost
against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $2,895.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 1624 Jersey Ave So
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
1624 JERSEY AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 05-117-21-43-0078
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 1624 Jersey Avenue South, have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 1624 Jersey Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,895.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
5.85 %.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 84-11 Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2008-3001
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,243.55 and accepting
work for Fire Station No. 1 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) with Omann Brothers Paving, Inc.
for Project No. 2008-3001, City Contract No. 84-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and
2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750 Wooddale Avenue
and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue.
The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations,
rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general
contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative
throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts
related to the construction of the two stations.
City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) for Fire Station No. 1 to
Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. on April 11, 2011, in the amount of $62,721.00. The Contractor
completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $64,871.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Fire Stations Project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for construction
in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of $15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be
approximately $15,100,000.
$12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The
remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 84-11 Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. – Project 2008-3001
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,243.55 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE
ASPHALT PAVING FOR FIRE STATION NO. 1
WITH OMANN BROTHERS PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-3001
CONTRACT NO. 84-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 27, 2011, Omann Brothers Paving, Inc.
has satisfactorily completed Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) for Fire Station No. 1, as per
Contract No. 84-11.
2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final
acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price 62,721.00
Change Order 1 + 2,150.00
Final Contract Amount $64,871.00
Previous Payments - 61,627.45
Balance Due $ 3,243.55
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 53-11 T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. – Project No. 2008-3002
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,237.83 and accepting
work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) with T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. for
Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 53-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and
2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750 Wooddale Avenue
and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue.
The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations,
rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general
contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative
throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts
related to the construction of the two stations.
City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) for Fire Station No. 2 to
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. on April 11, 2011, in the amount of $38,000.00. The Contractor
completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $44,756.65.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Fire Stations Project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for construction
in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of $15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be
approximately $15,100,000.
$12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The
remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No . 4e) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution – Contract 53-11 T.A. Schifsky & Sons – Project 2008-3002
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,237.83 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE
ASPHALT PAVING FOR FIRE STATION NO. 2
WITH T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-3002
CONTRACT NO. 53-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 12, 2011, T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc.
has satisfactorily completed Work Scope Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) for Fire Station No.
2, as per Contract No. 53-11.
2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final
acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $38,000.00
Change Order 1 + $6,756.65
Final Contract Amount $44,756.65
Previous Payments - 42,518.82
Balance Due $ 2,237.83
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Final Payment Resolution – Contract 57-11 Twin City Tile & Marble Company – Project No.
2008-3002
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,156.50 and accepting
work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) with Twin City Tile & Marble
Company for Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 55-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and
2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750 Wooddale Avenue
and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue.
The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations,
rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general
contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative
throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts
related to the construction of the two stations.
City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) for Fire Station No. 2 to
Twin City Tile & Marble Company on April 11, 2011, in the amount of $43,130.00. The
Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$43,130.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Fire Stations Project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for construction
in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of $15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be
approximately $15,100,000.
$12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The
remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 55-11 Twin City Tile & Marble – Project 2008-3002
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,156.50 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE
FLOOR COATINGS FOR FIRE STATION NO. 2
WITH TWIN CITY TILE & MARBLE COMPANY
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008--3002
CONTRACT NO. 55-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 12, 2011, Twin City Tile & Marble
Company has satisfactorily completed Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) for Fire Stations No.
2, as per Contract No. 57-11.
2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final
acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Contract Amount $ 43,130.00
Previous Payments - $ 40,973.50
Balance Due $ $2,156.50
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appointments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch,
Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes as hearing officers for the administrative penalties program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council approve the staff recommendation of
appointing attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes as
hearing officers for the administrative penalties program?
SUMMARY: On August 20, 2012, the City Council passed a code amendment establishing the
administrative penalties program. The process is intended to respectfully resolve code violations
in a manner that reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid. It provides a mechanism for
code enforcement that results in a citation being issued, which may be contested at a hearing
requested by the resident, to determine whether the code violation occurred. The new code
language provides for attorneys who are admitted to practice law in the State of Minnesota and
are not residents of St. Louis Park to be hired as hearing officers.
Following the posting of the positions and the interview process, staff presented their
recommendation to the City Council in a written report at the November 13, 2012 Study Session.
The staff recommendation is to appoint attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen,
and Patricia Hughes as hearing officers in the administrative penalties program. They each meet
the minimum requirements of the position, and each has direct experience either as hearing
officers for another city’s similar program or significant experience in an administrative hearing
setting. They will be called on a rotating basis as needed, and will serve in this capacity until
they either withdraw or are removed from the list by the City Council. Resumes for the
candidates are on file with the City Clerk’s Office.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Hearing officers will be compensated at
$150 per session or half day, as needed. The funds to cover this compensation will be derived
from the fees generated by the administrative penalties program.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Not applicable.
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Easement Agreement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project (Creek Remeander
Project)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an easement for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) to construct and maintain the Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project (Creek
Remeander Project)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support granting temporary construction and permanent access and
maintenance agreements on City property to MCWD for the Minnehaha Creek Reach 20
Restoration Project?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with MCWD in February 22, 2012. In the
Cooperative Agreement, the City agreed to provide an easement to MCWD for access onto City
property for the construction and maintenance of the Project. The proposed easement satisfies
that provision and allows MCWD to begin construction.
Project Location:
The proposed creek remeander would be located in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. The
existing creek channel would be affected, primarily between Meadowbrook Road and Louisiana
Avenue. The creek would be modified and re-routed, mostly on City property; however, the
parcels at 7202 and 7252 Excelsior Boulevard are also included in the project. MCWD acquired
those parcels in 2010; the northern portion of the parcels will be used for the new creek channel,
and the southern portion of the parcels will be used for a new stormwater treatment area. A
billboard was removed from the site in October to allow for construction of the new stormwater
facilities. Larger scale depictions of the full remeander are attached at the end of the report.
Project Background:
The City has been partnering with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) since 2009
to complete the steps needed to allow the MCWD to move forward with the reconstruction of a
portion of Minnehaha Creek. The channel reconstruction, also called a “remeander,” will result
in ecological improvements to the creek’s natural function, stormwater improvements that will
benefit water quality and reduce potential flooding, vegetative improvements to reduce invasive
species and improve habitat for native plants and animals, and canoe landings and trail
improvements that will increase public access to the creek and will be ADA accessible.
The collaborative process between the City and MCWD started in 2009. A brief chronology of
the work completed to date includes:
• December 2010: The City, with assistance from MCWD, was awarded a $300,000 grant
from the state Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to help fund the remeander.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
The funds are available as part of the Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy
Amendment passed in 2008.
• February 2011: The City Council authorized a grant agreement between the City and
BWSR to allow for the grant funds to be used by MCWD to pay for engineering and
construction.
• August 2011: The City and MCWD held a public open house for community review of
the project at the Municipal Service Center. Approximately 15 business owners and
residents attended the meeting.
• November 2011: The MCWD Board held a public hearing on the remeander project at its
offices in Deephaven, and ordered that the project move forward to full engineering
drawings and completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
• May 2012: The St. Louis Park City Council, as the Responsible Governmental Unit,
authorized distribution of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Review of the
comments received is currently underway.
• Summer 2012: MCWD met individually with major property owners adjacent to the
project, including Meadowbrook Apartments.
• August 22nd, 2012: MCWD hosted a second public meeting for neighbors at St. Louis
Park City Hall to provide general information to the public regarding the project and
construction process. Invitations were sent to residents of the South Oak Hill,
Meadowbrook, and Brooklawns neighborhoods. There was one attendee with general
questions about the creek; the attendee was supportive of the project.
• September 2012: The MCWD and City completed the EAW and Conditional Use Permit
process to ensure all regulatory requirements were met.
• October 2012: Construction bids were opened on October 31, 2012.
• November 2012: MCWD awarded the Base Bid to Blackstone Contractors, Inc..
• September-November 2012: The City reviewed and provided comments on the final
construction documents to MCWD. City comments focused on design suggestions
related to reducing, and facilitating better, ongoing maintenance of the trail and bridge.
• November 2012: The City and MCWD negotiated the proposed easement for access to
build and maintain the project. Also, the City extended an offer to MCWD to reimburse
the costs of the trail and bridge components of the project over a period of time, if
MCWD will finance the initial construction costs.
• December: Blackstone Contractors, Inc. will likely begin work on the MCWD property
on December 3, 2012.
Project Update
The engineering drawings for construction are complete. City staff reviewed the project to
ensure it meets City standards. The MCWD Staff and Board are responsible for the overall
project management.
The project specifications split the specified work into a Base Bid and an Add Alternate Bid.
The Base Bid included the Minnehaha Creek remeander and stormwater pond construction. The
Add Alternate Bid included construction of the asphalt trail, bridge, and boardwalk. Bids were
evaluated based on the combination Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid.
MCWD awarded the Base Bid in the amount of $823,463.18 to Blackstone Contractors, Inc.
MCWD has until the end of March to decide whether or not to also award Blackstone the Add
Alternate Bid, which totaled $1,035,907.20. The City extended an offer to reimburse MCWD
over a period of time for the costs of the asphalt trail and bridge if MCWD is willing to finance
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
the upfront construction costs. The asphalt trail and bridge portions of the bid amounted to
$314,000 of the Add Alternate Bid; however, the review comments submitted by staff may
increase this figure through a change order, but is expected to remain within the $500,000
previously estimated. MCWD would be responsible for the boardwalk construction, which
accounts for the remaining $721,907.20 of the Add Alternate Bid, if it is awarded.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Granting the proposed easement does not have any financial or budget impacts.
The City received a grant of $300,000 from the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for
this project from the Clean Water Legacy Amendment passed in 2008, which is being passed
through to MCWD. The MCWD is providing the balance of the funds. The City may reimburse
MCWD for the costs of the trail and bridge, if a financing agreement is reached.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed re-meander, its associated environmental attributes, and the potential for trail
construction along the creek meet various Vision goals. The project would enhance the City’s
environmental stewardship of Minnehaha Creek, and, by bringing residents closer to the creek,
increase environmental consciousness within the community. The project would also help
develop the city’s network of trails.
Attachments: Resolution
Proposed Easement
Restoration Project Graphic
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
RESOLUTION NO.12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT OF CITY PROPERTY
3958 Louisiana Avenue South
WHEREAS, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”) proposes a project to
restore 4,675 linear feet of straightened channel of Minnehaha Creek to its former channel on
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and City of St. Louis Park property. This action will
restore former channel sinuosity, improve stormwater filtration, update canoe access, develop
recreational trails, and maximize stream, wetland, and riparian habitat along the creek within St.
Louis Park (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Project lies on City-owned property located at 3958
Louisiana Avenue South and legally described as follows:
The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21,
except that part thereof platted as “Meadowbrook Manor” and except that part platted as
“Creek Terrace Addition.”
Also, Beginning at the Southeast Corner of RLS No. 1045, then west along the South
Line Thereof to the East Line of the West 1012 Feet of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, then south along said East Line 130 Feet, then southeast to a Point
250 Feet south and 150 Feet west of the Point of Beginning, then east to the East Line of
the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼, then north to the Point of Beginning.
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and MCWD entered into a Cooperative
Agreement related to the Project on February 22, 2012, in the City of St. Louis Park agreed to
provide an easement to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for construction and maintenance
of the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs
the Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Easement Agreement for said easements on
behalf of the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
EASEMENT
On the Property of the City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Legal description of Burdened Property:
Described in Attachment A and depicted in Exhibit B incorporated herein.
THIS EASEMENT is entered into between the City of St. Louis Park, a home rule charter
city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“City”); the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, a special-purpose governmental body established under and with
authorities specified at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D (“District”) (together,
the “parties”).
Recitals
A. The City owns in fee simple certain real property within City boundaries and riparian to
Minnehaha Creek, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in Attachment A
hereto (the “Burdened Property”).
B. In consideration of the payment of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration,
and the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of
which hereby are acknowledged, the City conveys to the District and the District accepts an
easement of both a perpetual and a temporary nature on the Burdened Property, as
specifically set forth herein.
C. The City represents that there are no unrecorded or unregistered constraints on the City’s
legal capacity to convey this easement and each right conveyed to the District herein. The
City has no actual knowledge of the storage or disposal of a hazardous material on or within
the Easement Area. For the purpose of this paragraph, “hazardous material” means any
asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foamed-in-place insulation, polychlorinated biphenyl,
petroleum, crude oil or any other hazardous pollutant, waste, material or substance as
defined in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended, or the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, as amended.
Easement
1. The easement here conveyed includes: (a) A temporary easement to realign and
stabilize the bed and banks of Minnehaha Creek; construct trails and boardwalks for non-
motorized use, fencing and other related improvements; perform other hydrologic and
ecosystem improvements including vegetation management; and install educational and
informational signage (together, the “Project”) (“Construction Easement”); and (b) A
perpetual easement to inspect, maintain repair and , reconstruct the Project or parts thereof
("Permanent Easement").
2. Easement Description. The Permanent and Construction Easements are coincident
with each other and the boundaries of these easements are coincident with the boundary of
the Burdened Property (“Easement Area”).
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
3. Construction Easement. The Construction Easement is a temporary easement on
the Burdened Property to allow for Project construction activity. The City conveys to the
District, until construction, demobilization and site stabilization are complete, an easement
over the Easement Area for all purposes necessary or convenient for construction of the
Project, including but not limited to: (a) channel realignment; structural and bioengineering
installations; basins; trail and boardwalk facilities for non-motorized use;
educational/informational signage; and vegetation; (b) labor; movement, operation and
staging of equipment; materials stockpiling; and the placement and maintenance of erosion
control and similar construction-phase site measures; and (c) ingress and egress to and from
the Easement Area as well as areas within the construction limits located on adjacent land.
At the close of active work, the District will stabilize exposed soils and ensure all trash,
debris and excess materials are removed.
4. Permanent Easement. The City conveys to the District, appurtenant to Minnehaha
Creek and its riparian lands as “waters of the state” that it is the District’s statutory mandate
to manage and protect, an easement in perpetuity to use, inspect, maintain ,repair and
reconstruct Project elements, and maintain associated hydrologic, vegetative, structural and
educational modifications to maintain and enhance the Project. This easement includes
rights to ingress and egress over and across the trails and boardwalks; equipment staging and
use; material stockpiling; maintenance and reestablishment of vegetation; and other rights as
reasonably necessary or convenient for the work described.
5. Protection of Project. The City and District will not perform or knowingly allow
others to perform acts within the Easement Area in violation of the specific terms of this
easement or that would materially disturb the Project, impair its function, or interfere with
the District’s exercise of its rights under this easement. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, the City may temporarily disturb the Project for any necessary public purpose, but
will limit the disturbance to the extent reasonably necessary, and restore the Project
substantially to its preexisting ecologic condition. The District will prepare a Project
Management Plan for the Easement area for City review and approval. The Management
Plan may include a list of uses and activities that are expected, allowed, discouraged, and
prohibited. The Project Management Plan will also provide for processes for District and
City review and approval of exceptions.
6. Public Ownership Rights, Regulatory Authorities. The parties recognize that the
rights in this easement may be subject to ownership, easement or servitude interests of the
State of Minnesota in the bed or banks of Minnehaha Creek or adjacent lands. This
easement does not replace or diminish the regulatory authority of any public body, including
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the District and the City, as it may apply
to the Burdened Property or any activity on it. Notwithstanding, the City as fee owner will
cooperate in any permits or approvals required for the Project. This includes but is not
limited to executing and recording covenants or declarations that may limit activity within
the Easement Area in ways other than or in addition to those set forth in this easement. The
City does not hereby assume the cost of or responsibility to apply for any such approvals.
7. Reserved Rights. Subject to restrictions of record, the City reserves all rights
accruing from the ownership of the Burdened Property not otherwise restricted or conveyed
to the District herein, including without limitation the right to engage in or allow others to
engage in all activities or uses of the Burdened Property that are not prohibited or limited by
this Easement, and the right to sell or transfer all or part of the Burdened Property subject to
this easement. Nothing in this easement creates any right in third parties or affects any
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 7
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
immunity, defense or liability limit of a party with respect to a third party. As between the
parties, only contract remedies are available for a breach of this easement.
8. Property Transfer. The City will inform the transferee of the existence of this
easement in conjunction with any transfer of interest, including an easement or a leasehold
interest, in all or part of the Burdened Property. The City will notify the District within
fifteen (15) days of a transfer of all or any part of a property interest in the Burdened
Property.
9. Taxes and Liens. The City retains all financial obligations, bears all costs and
liabilities accruing from the fee ownership of the Burdened Property, and will pay all taxes
and assessments levied against the Burdened Property. The District may, but is not
obligated to, make any payment of taxes or assessments levied against the Burdened
Property in place and on behalf of the City and will be reimbursed by the City for such
amounts.
10. Indemnification. The MCWD hereby holds the City harmless, and will defend and
indemnify the City, from and against any and all suits, actions, causes of actions,
proceedings, claims, costs and damages arising out of the design, construction, operation or
maintenance by the District of the Project, except to the extent resulting from an action or
inaction of the City for which the City independently would be subject to liability.
11. Insurance. Each of the parties remains solely responsible to maintain liability and
other insurance for its own use of and authority over the Burdened Property.
12. Waiver. A decision by a party not to exercise its rights of enforcement in the event
of a breach of a term of this easement is not a waiver of such term, any subsequent breach
of the same or any other term, or any of the party’s rights under this easement. The delay or
failure to discover a breach or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach does not
impair or waive a party’s rights of enforcement, all of which shall be cumulative and not
exclusive.
13. Acts Beyond Party’s Control. A party will not exercise its right of enforcement
against another party for injury or alteration to the Burdened Property resulting from: (a) a
cause beyond the reasonable control of that party, including without limitation fire, flood, a
precipitation event with a statistical recurrence interval of 100 years or more, storm, and
earth movement resulting from natural forces or the act of a third party; or (b) any prudent
action taken by the party under emergency conditions to prevent, abate or mitigate
significant injury or alteration resulting from such a cause.
14. Use and Assignment. The rights conveyed to the District under this easement are
extended and limited to authorized District representatives, agents, contractors and
subcontractors. The Project is intended in part for public recreational and educational use
and this easement encompasses the ability of the public to use the Project. The District may
assign this easement and any rights hereunder to another public body including but not
limited to the City and may dedicate the trail as public right of way. Nothing in this
easement is intended to allocate or should be read as allocating responsibility between the
City and the District for day-to-day management of use of the trails or other public facilities
on the Burdened Property or for day-to-day or periodic maintenance of the facilities or the
Burdened Property.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 8
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
15. Notices. Any notice or other communication that a party must give to another will
be in writing and delivered to the following address, or other address as the party designates
by written notice to the others:
To District:
Administrator
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven MN 55391
To City:
City of St. Louis Park
Attn: City Manager
City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
with copy to:
Parks and Recreation Director
The Rec Center
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
16. Miscellaneous. This easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties and
supersedes all prior discussions and agreements. The parties may amend this easement only
by a duly executed writing. The terms of this easement shall bind and benefit the parties and
their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns and all others who
exercise any right by or through them and the Permanent Easement shall run in perpetuity
with the Burdened Property. The MCWD bears the cost of duly recording this easement at
the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder.
17. Recitations Incorporated. All recitations are a part of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto execute and
deliver this Easement.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
By: ______________________________
Its: President
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 9
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2012, by __________________________ as President of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Approved as to form and execution:
By: ______________________________
MCWD Attorney
City of St. Louis Park
By: _____________________________
Its: Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2012, by __________________________ as the Mayor of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Notary Public
By: _____________________________
Its: City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 10
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2012, by __________________________ as the City Manager of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Notary Public
By: _____________________________
Its: Director of Parks and Recreation
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2012, by __________________________ as the Director of Parks
and Recreation of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Prepared by Smith Partners PLLP
400 Second Avenue South, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612-344-1400
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 11
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BURDENED PROPERTY
The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21,
except that part thereof platted as “Meadowbrook Manor” and except that part platted as
“Creek Terrace Addition.”
Also, Beginning at the Southeast Corner of RLS No. 1045, then west along the South Line
Thereof to the East Line of the West 1012 Feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter, then south along said East Line 130 Feet, then southeast to a Point 250 Feet south
and 150 Feet west of the Point of Beginning, then east to the East Line of the Southeast ¼
of the Northwest ¼, then north to the Point of Beginning.
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 12
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
ATTACHMENT B
MAP DEPICTION, BURDENED PROPERTY
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 13
Subject: Easement for Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
RESTORATION PROJECT GRAPHIC
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4i
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 November 10 through November 23,
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
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
43.77 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ABELSON, SHARON
43.77
225.00 MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC
225.00
46.75 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
46.75
385.00- CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS AIRWATCH LLC
5,985.00 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,600.00
100.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGS ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH
100.00
1,355.00 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE AMERICAN TEST CENTER INC
1,355.00
599.40 OPERATIONS TELEPHONE ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
599.40
266.86 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE ANDERSON, JOAN
266.86
506.16 GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
506.16
167.76 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT AT&T MOBILITY
167.76
175.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AUERS, LAWRENCE
175.00
3,500.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC BENJAMIN, ANN
3,500.00
3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BIRMANNS, SARAH
3,081.64
383.20 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
383.20
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
253.80 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BOBIER, HEIDI
253.80
636.85 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BOHN WELDING INC
636.85
2,165.00 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BORMANN CONSTRUCTION INC
2,165.00
470.52 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY BOYER TRUCK PARTS
470.52
50.00 INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL BRANDT, JAMES
50.00
1,595.25 CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,595.25
183.83 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES BROADWAY AWARDS
183.83
614.47 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
100.00 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
714.47
300.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY C&E AUTO UPHOLSTERY
300.00
9,329.80 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
46.50 EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
3,121.45 STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,125.00 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL SERVICES
180.00 WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
630.00 SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
14,432.75
1,436.40 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE CARTRIDGE CARE
1,436.40
10,751.24 MHFA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
1,450.00 MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
22,859.00 TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
360.00 CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
35,420.24
557.72 FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY
196.89 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
17.90 WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
72.63 NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
2,215.78 WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
75.67 REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
50.44 SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,187.03
2,674.18 FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
4,657.10 ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
7,331.28
46.68 E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK
385.78 CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC. TELEPHONE
432.46
95.70 FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES CINTAS CORPORATION
86.20 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
153.96 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
335.86
39.80 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
195.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
422.67 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
151.00 FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
100.00 FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
39.02 FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
7.41- CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
115.16 TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,055.24
103.00 OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT PARTS CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC
103.00
90.35 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COMCAST
82.41 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
172.76
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
515.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE COMCAST CABLE
515.00
4,600.00 EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
4,600.00
633.07 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
633.07
63.81- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
991.95 ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
928.14
8,158.89 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
112.50 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COUSIN, LAURA
112.50
795.00 HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING CRESCENDO, INC
795.00
1.94- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CROWN MARKING INC
30.14 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
28.20
240.84 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES CUB FOODS
240.84
836.70 SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
857.14 SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
423.23 SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
88.17 SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
141.08 SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,346.32
2,800.00 GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES DAKOTA CO TECH COLLEGE
3,000.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PREPAID EXPENSES
1,734.00 WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
433.00 SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
433.00 STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
8,400.00
23.03 ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR DANOVSKY, MICKI
23.03
6,670.77 INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
25.00 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
6,695.77
2,146.57 ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
2,146.57
120.93 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EBERT, KEN
120.93
975.00 ESCROWS TOLD PROJECT EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
975.00
72.00 INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING ELDER-JONES BUILDING PERMIT SE
72.00
170.96 ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES ELLANSON, LUKE
170.96
2,019.55 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
2,019.55
333.45 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS IN
333.45
10.52 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES FASTENAL COMPANY
10.52
233.80 ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELS FERRELLGAS
233.80
35.48- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
551.53 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
516.05
320.00 COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT FISCHER, ALEC
320.00
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
557.35 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY FORCE AMERICA INC
557.35
33.86 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES FRATTALLONES/SAINT LOUIS PARK
33.86
859.00 ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
859.00
275.00 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS GLASS & MIRROR OUTLET
275.00
4,157.91 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,157.91
862.75 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
862.75
84.95 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE GOTHBERG, BRIDGET
84.95
96.19 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY GRAFIX SHOPPE
96.19
159.51 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY GRAINGER INC, WW
44.55 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
245.33 WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
449.39
194.54 WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
194.54
2,316.19 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES HAWKINS INC
2,316.19
85.78 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES HEDBERG AGGREGATES
689.34 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
775.12
1,907.76 POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
703.90 OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
201.86 OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
2,813.52
1,694.78 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
419.04 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,113.82
799.71 ENGINEERING G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORP
799.71
4,445.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
4,445.00
2,377.97 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
2,377.97
25.72 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HILLEREN, CURTIS
25.72
55.45 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
23.48 SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
104.92 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.61 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.93 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
280.71 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7.71 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
25.47 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.86 SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
635.14
2,539.64 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS HOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
2,539.64
600.00 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT HRGREEN
600.00
412.50 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HUTCHINSON, MELINDA
412.50
1,685.10 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,685.10
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
87.69 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY INVER GROVE FORD
87.69
102.45 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY I-STATE TRUCK CENTER
102.45
175.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES JACOBSON, KIM
175.00
150.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES JENNIGES, NICHOLAS
150.00
320.57 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS JERRY'S HARDWARE
30.99 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
351.56
350.40 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
350.40
252.48 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE JOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
252.48
475.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JOURNEYWELL
475.00
11,000.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI JUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC
11,000.00
142.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
142.00
276.92 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS KELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
881.40 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KIRCHNER, TODD
263.00 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
1,144.40
110.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
110.00
250.00 VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LANG, LISA
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
250.00
720.88 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE LARSCO INC
720.88
2,385.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,385.00
18,698.69 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
18,698.69
155.35 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LENTNER, LAURA
155.35
336.32 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LEONARD, COLLEEN
336.32
30.34 TREE REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL LEVITT, MATTHEW
30.34
512.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEXIS NEXIS OCC HEALTH SOLUTIO
512.00
42,083.15 IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES LOGIS
9,461.63 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
51,544.78
27.63- PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES MENARDS
27.62 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
68.36 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
68.35
101.01 PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR MERKLEY, SCOTT
101.01
427.50 VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
427.50
2,341.35 INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
292,430.91 OPERATIONS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
294,772.26
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
193.07 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT MICRO CENTER
53.43 CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT
246.50
75.08 HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
75.08
37,981.24 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI MILLERBERND MFG CO
37,981.24
370.80 PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
370.80
256.20 HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO
256.20
59.38 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES MINUTEMAN PRESS
59.38
483.08 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS MINVALCO INC
483.08
110.00 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
110.00
564.58 FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS MONTILINO, DEBRA
564.58
17.50 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE MORALES, ALICIA
17.50
9.60 SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
207.25- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
15.40 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.14 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING SERVICE
551.42 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
428.31
343.75- CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS NEOGOV
5,343.75 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
5,000.00
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
150.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES NYBERG, JAN
150.00
500.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
140.01 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT
81.36 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
59.74 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
188.09 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
39.50 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
508.70
1,734.22 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFICE TEAM
1,734.22
504.72 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
504.72
171.01 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ON SITE SANITATION
171.01
282.63 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PARR, MELISSA
282.63
5,500.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC PAUL PROPERTIES LLC, GAVIN
5,500.00
3,000.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC PETERSON, RYAN
3,000.00
74.57 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
74.57
1,024.99 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PLAISTED COMPANIES INC
1,024.99
185.00 POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORU
185.00
54.94 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLK, MARLA
445.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
499.94
362.70 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE POPP.COM INC
362.70
4.00- STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
62.16 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
58.16
5,515.82 TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
5,515.82
180.00 ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE PRINTERS SERVICE INC
180.00
1,070.22 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE PUMP & METER SERVICE
322.87 REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,393.09
3,557.50 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE Q3 CONTRACTING
375.00 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,932.50
157.50 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
157.50
53.37 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
53.37
5,980.00 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHER REHRIG PACIFIC CO
5,980.00
250.00 ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING RICE LEADERSHIP CONSULTING, ML
250.00
291.64 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RIGID HITCH INC
291.64
2,375.77 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT ROCKET SOFTWARE INC
2,375.77
150.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ROG, MARGARET
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
150.00
201.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS ROTARY CLUB OF SLP
85.00 POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
150.00 POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
436.00
445.96 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS RUSH, THOMAS
445.96
74.34 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES SAM'S CLUB
50.81 OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
715.87 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
841.02
50.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES SANDUM, KATHERINE
392.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
442.00
18.45- PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
171.46 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
153.01
472.01 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SCHOEBEN'S WINDOW CLEANING SER
472.01
10.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
45.00 IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00 FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
50.00 POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
45.00 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
160.00
325.00 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
192.83 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
517.83
26,000.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SIKKA & FAEGRE BAKER, DALJIT &
26,000.00
1,279.79 REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
1,279.79
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
1,430.04 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,430.04
3,515.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SPRINGSTED
3,515.00
1,076.23 TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
1,076.23
900.00 HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC
900.00
576.27 PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES ST PAUL, CITY OF
576.27
158.60 ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS STAR TRIBUNE
158.60
569.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
569.00
4,771.69 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STREICHER'S
4,771.69
979.38 PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
979.38
83.94 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES SUN NEWSPAPERS
1,030.00 COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
1,113.94
300.00 HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS TCALMC
300.00
42.57 ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TELELANGUAGE INC
42.57
74.56 BRICK HOUSE (1324) BUILDING MTCE SERVICE TERMINIX INT
74.55 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
149.11
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
1,743.22 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT THE FOUNDATION
1,743.22
42.66 ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY THE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
51.90 HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.51 COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
47.44 IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
33.10 ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
64.49 FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
106.70 COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
113.80 POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
55.24 OPERATIONS LONG TERM DISABILITY
54.34 INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.99 PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.77 ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
65.00 ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05 WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
12.99 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.51 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.60 HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25 WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,932.60 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,829.49
212.50 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TICHY, ERIC & KATHERINE
212.50
1,326.41 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TKDA
8,511.84 PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,838.25
8,680.00 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TREE TRUST
8,680.00
165.93 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TRI STATE BOBCAT
165.93
203.92 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE TURFWERKS
203.92
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
70.43 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
70.43
2,845.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI TWIN CITY WINDOW REPLACEMENT C
2,845.00
30.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
129.20 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UGARTE, KATIE
129.20
772.38 COP SHOP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UHL CO INC
261.00 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,033.38
349.44 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
9.62 SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
750.00 SUPERVISORY OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,113.02 PATROL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,222.08
150.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS UNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
240.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
240.00
162.50 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UNZE, ROBERT
162.50
288.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES US HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
288.00
178.26 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY USA BLUE BOOK
178.26
657.90 HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION VAIL, LORI
657.90
1,775.19 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE VALLEY-RICH CO INC
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
1,775.19
5,000.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC VANMAN ARCHITECTS & BUILDERS
5,000.00
5,996.56 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
60,470.85 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25,260.21 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
33,056.51 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
39,864.71 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
164,648.84
571.50 REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE WASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
571.50
126.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WEST PAYMENT CENTER
126.00
629.15 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD AS
629.15
2,446.00 SUMMER GRADE 6-8 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WOLF RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL LEARN
2,446.00
1,170.28 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI WRAP CITY GRAPHICS
1,170.28
21.87 OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS XCEL ENERGY
33,221.90 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,135.16 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
24.79 BRICK HOUSE (1324) ELECTRIC SERVICE
45.11 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OFFICE EQUIPMENT
627.64 WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31,682.62 WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,828.84 REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,978.26 SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
470.18 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
75,036.37
3,162.00 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES XTERIOR XPERTS
3,162.00
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
11/28/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:43:07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18 Page - Council Check Summary
11/23/2012 - 11/10/2012
Vendor Amount Business Unit Object
24,338.30 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY YOCUM OIL CO INC
928.72 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
25,267.02
427.50 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
27.50- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
400.00
359.07 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEGLER INC
359.07
Report Totals 979,483.55
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item: 4j
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: eCharging Joint Powers Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the eCharging Joint Powers Agreement.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to approve the eCharging Joint Powers Agreement?
BACKGROUND:
The eCharging system allows the Police Department and City Attorney’s Office, Colich and
Associates, to electronically file criminal complaints with the Hennepin County Courts system.
The joint powers agreement allows the Police Department and St. Louis Park City Attorney’s
Office to use systems and tools available over the State of Minnesota’s criminal justice data
communications network. The eCharging system is on a computer network that is owned and
operated by the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension. The State of Minnesota requires a joint powers agreement from the city to allow
access to their criminal justice data communications network.
A Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota allows the Police Department and Colich
and Associates to electronically file criminal complaints with the Hennepin County Courts
system.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None
VISION CONSIDERATION: None
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Lieutenant
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3rd, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: eCharging Joint Powers Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -____
RESOLUTION APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS
WITH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND
POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney and Police
Department desires to enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to use systems and tools
available over the State's criminal justice data communications network for which the City
is eligible. The Joint Powers Agreements further provide the City with the ability to add,
modify and delete connectivity, systems and tools over the five year life of the agreement
and obligates the City to pay the costs for the network connection.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements by and between the State of
Minnesota acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension and the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney and
Police Department, are hereby approved.
2. That the St. Louis Park Police Department, Chief John Luse, or his or her successor, is
designated the Authorized Representative for the Police Department. The Authorized
Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that
may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City's connection to the
systems and tools offered by the State.
To assist the Authorized Representative with the administration of the agreement,
Lieutenant Michael Harcey is appointed as the Authorized Representative's designee.
3. That Colich and Associates, City Prosecutor for the City of St. Louis Park, Michael J. Colich,
or his successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the Prosecuting Attorney.
The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or
agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City's
connection to the systems and tools offered by the State.
To assist the Authorized Representative with the administration of the agreement, Jamie
L. Kreuser is appointed as the Authorized Representative's designee.
4. That Jeffrey Jacobs, the Mayor for the City of St. Louis Park, and Nancy Stroth, the City Clerk,
are authorized to sign the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Information will be presented at the meeting pertaining to the 2013 property tax
supported budgets, 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, other general tax and budgetary
information.
• After the presentation, the Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, solicit comments
and close the public hearing. There is no other formal action required at this meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy at $24,712,941,
which is an increase of $950,190 or approximately 4.00% over the 2012 Final Property
Tax Levy at the December 17, 2012 meeting? Or, does the City Council desire to certify a
lesser percentage change as its 2013 Final Property Tax Levy?
• Does the City Council desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of taxable market value
allowable for HRA purposes, which is $900,933, or an $82,641 decrease from 2012, to
assist in paying for infrastructure needs in redeveloping areas?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2013 Utility Rates as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At the September 4, 2012 Regular City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a 2013
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $24,712,941 which is an increase of $950,190, or an
approximate 4.00% increase from the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. This levy is utilized to
support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, Capital Replacement
Fund, Park Improvement Fund, and the Employee Administration Fund. In addition, the levy
will provide for the pay down of principal and interest payments for the Debt Service Funds.
The City Council and EDA also adopted a 2013 Preliminary HRA Levy of $900,933, which is
$82,641, or approximately an 8.40% decrease from the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574. By
law, this levy can only be used for infrastructure, housing and redevelopment purposes.
City Council has reviewed and discussed the 2013 Proposed Budget, property tax implications, the
2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and utility rates over the course of the year. The
Preliminary 2013 General Property Tax Levy increase is currently set at 4.00%. Formal adoption of
the 2013 Budget, 2013 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, 2013 Utility Rates, and the
2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for December 17, 2012.
For 2013, the combined balanced preliminary General and Park and Recreation Fund budget is
$30,345,459, compared to $29,720,184 in 2012, or an increase of $625,275, or approximately
2.10%.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 2
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
The breakdown of the 2013 Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart:
2012 2013 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Proposed From 2012 From 2012
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,169,798 $20,657,724 487,926$ 2.42%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Capital Replacement Fund 438,300 1,108,132 669,832 152.83%
Pavement Management Fund 315,000 - (315,000) -100.00%
Debt Service 1,929,629 1,937,085 7,456 0.39%
Employee Administration Fund 100,024 200,000 99,976 99.95%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $23,762,751 $24,712,941 $950,190 4.00%
Additional Property Tax Levy Information:
• A 4.00% or $950,190 increase from the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy compared to the
2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy is reflected above.
• General Fund levy allocation increased due to increased unwinding or elimination of
transfers dating back to LGA elimination in 2003 and operational needs.
• Capital Replacement Fund levy allocation was increased by a total of $669,832, of which
$315,000 was shifted from the Pavement Management Fund, with the remaining
$354,832 added based on potential future projects and to aid in achieving long term
sustainability.
• Pavement Management Fund levy allocation was eliminated and shifted to the Capital
Replacement Fund due to a franchise fee increase within the fund for 2013.
• Employee Administration Fund levy allocation was increased in the effort to achieve long
term sustainability.
FISCAL DISPARITIES
The City’s net fiscal disparities contribution has increased significantly from 2010 to 2012,
increasing from approximately $1.2 million in 2010 to over $3.2 million in 2012. This increase
equates to approximately 3.17% of the City’s total 2012 tax capacity. For Proposed 2013, the
City’s net contribution decreased by approximately $280,000, to a total net contribution of
approximately $2.94 million, or approximately 4.74% of its total tax capacity to the fiscal
disparities pool. This net contribution increases the City’s tax rate.
2013 FINAL HRA LEVY
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use
the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some
of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analyses for future
improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and
redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future,
particularly transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana, the City’s current
budgeted share to be paid from the HRA Levy Fund is $12,095,500 with another $200,000 from
the Utility Funds. Council approved on September 4, 2012 that the HRA Levy continue at the
maximum allowed by law for the 2013 budget year. By state statute, the HRA Levy cannot
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 3
exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City. Therefore, Staff has calculated the
maximum Preliminary HRA Levy for 2013 to be $900,933 based on data from Hennepin County
resulting in an $82,641 decrease from the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574.
2013 UTILITY RATES
Utility Rates for 2013 were discussed with the City Council on August 13th and on October 15th,
2012. Based on analyses from information in the CIP and the plan approved by Council, which
is the continued phased-in increase to the fixed fee for the Water Fund as a means to reduce
some of the seasonal volatility, changes in utility rates are being recommended. The changes are
consistent with information Council received in the past and are in line with the goals of
achieving long-term sustainability in the funds. For 2013, the approximate cumulative effect on
a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $36.24,
or 4.09% for the year, or approximately $3.02 per month. This calculation is based on a family
of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service.
The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on
January 1, 2013 if Council agrees to move forward. The information shown on the next page
depicts what a sample customer’s utility bill is in 2012 and proposed for 2013.
Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Actual 2012 and Proposed 2013
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Proposed Dollar Percent
Service Type 2012 2013 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.39$ 1.44$ 0.05$ 3.60%
Service charge 12.59$ 15.03$ 2.44$ 19.38%
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%
Consumption 41.70$ 43.20$ 1.50$ 3.60%
Sewer
Service charge 13.04$ 13.43$ 0.39$ 2.99%
Per unit 2.53$ 2.61$ 0.08$ 3.16%
Consumption 75.90$ 78.30$ 2.40$ 3.16%
Storm Drainage
Service charge 15.50$ 16.00$ 0.50$ 3.23%
Bassett Creek Fee*1.60$ 1.93$ 0.33$ 20.63%Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)61.14$ 62.97$ 1.83$ 2.99%
Total Bill without Bassett*221.46$ 230.52$ 9.06$ 4.09%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)9.06$
Increase per year (dollars)36.24$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 4
ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF CITY CHANGES
Estimated City Share of 4% Preliminary Property Tax Levy Increase for the 2013 Budget
As noted in the information in Attachment 1, the impact on the estimated City share of property
taxes, based on a 4% levy increase, differs widely based on the value of a residential homestead
property owner’s home. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of about $67
per year, or approximately 11.6%, while other homeowners could see an increase of about $140
per year, or approximately 4.1%. The City’s share of the estimated 2013 preliminary property tax
decrease would occur in more affordable residential homesteaded properties below
approximately $212,000, while the increase in the estimated City share of the 2013 preliminary
property taxes would occur in residential homesteaded properties over approximately $212,000.
These figures are only for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other
taxing jurisdictions.
Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2013 for Taxes and Utilities
Based on a 4.00% levy increase, and realizing that there are many variables in estimating the
City impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at
approximately $211,400 for taxes payable in 2013 and having typical utilities as shown in the
table on the previous page, would experience an overall increase of approximately $2.87 per
month or approximately $34.44 for the entire year. Of this estimated $34.44 increase,
approximately a $36.24 increase would be attributed to utility rate adjustments and
approximately a $1.80 decrease would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes.
NEXT STEPS:
As the 2013 Budget process nears completion, the following steps remain:
December 3 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and 2013 Budget presentation.
December 17 Council adopts 2013 Budget, final property tax levies, CIP and utility rates.
On December 17, 2012, the City Council has the option of decreasing the
2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levies that were certified for the City and
HRA back on September 4, 2012; however they cannot be increased.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park’s property tax levy helps support the operations of the General, Parks
and Recreation, Park Improvement, Capital Replacement, and Employee Administration funds.
In addition, the levy covers the debt service requirements on three outstanding General
Obligation bonds.
OTHER:
As of November 26th, there were no letters or formal requests received in Administrative
Services addressing the proposed increase in the city portion of their property taxes to consider.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision, including strategic directions, are used in throughout the budgeting process and kept at
the foreground of budgeting decisions.
Attachments: Estimated City Share of Property Tax Levy – 4.00%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 10-15-12
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact change
Property Value Mkt. Value Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2012 2013 Total Home.Total Home.Market Market 2012 2013 2012 2013 Change Change
Exclusion Exclusion Value 2012 Value 2013
150,000 132,000 (23,740.00) (25,360.00) 126,260.00 106,640.00 1,263 1,066 576.65 509.97 -66.68 -11.6%
200,000 184,000 (19,240.00) (20,680.00) 180,760.00 163,320.00 1,808 1,633 825.57 781.03 -44.54 -5.4%
220,100 211,400 (17,431.00) (18,214.00) 202,669.00 193,186.00 2,027 1,932 925.63 923.85 -1.78 -0.2%
300,000 294,000 (10,240.00) (10,780.00) 289,760.00 283,220.00 2,898 2,832 1,323.39 1,354.41 31.02 2.3%
350,000 348,250 (5,740.00) (5,897.50) 344,260.00 342,352.50 3,443 3,424 1,572.30 1,637.20 64.89 4.1%
400,000 398,000 (1,240.00) (1,420.00) 398,760.00 396,580.00 3,988 3,966 1,821.22 1,896.52 75.31 4.1%
500,000 497,500 - - 500,000.00 497,500.00 5,000 4,975 2,283.60 2,379.14 95.54 4.2%
600,000 597,000 - - 600,000.00 597,000.00 6,250 6,213 2,854.50 2,970.94 116.44 4.1%
700,000 696,500 - - 700,000.00 696,500.00 7,500 7,456 3,425.40 3,565.73 140.33 4.1%
Assumptions:
2012 and 2013 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 5
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6E
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:
First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South, North of Morningside
Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor is asked to open public hearing, take comments, and then close public hearing. Motion to
approve first reading Adopting Ordinance vacating the Natchez Avenue South right-of-way
extending 500 feet north of Morningside Road, and to set the second reading for December 17,
2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to vacate this unused right-of-way?
BACKGROUND:
As stated in the attached letter to the City Council from the residents along the 4200 block of
Ottawa Ave S, the request to vacate the remaining portion of the 4200 block of Natchez Ave S is
made for the following reasons:
1. The cities of St. Louis Park and Edina have already vacated the majority of the Natchez
Ave S right-of-way.
2. A road is unlikely to be constructed within the remaining right-of-way as a result of the
previous vacations.
3. The vacated right-of-way can be used for screening from the subdivision proposed in the
City of Edina.
Natchez Ave S was originally platted in 1910 as West Avenue in the Wooddale Park plat. Roads
were built in all the platted right-of-ways except this small section of Natchez Ave S. To this
date, this right-of-way remains unimproved, meaning it
does not contain a street, trail or other public
improvement.
Previous vacations:
The east half of Natchez Ave S is located in the City of
Edina, and was vacated around 1950, leaving the west
half in St. Louis Park as an unimproved public right-
of-way. It is 20 feet wide.
The north 100 feet of Natchez Ave S along with a
section of 42 ½ Street was vacated in 2011 at the
request of the SLP resident adjacent to it.
Morningside Road
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Future need of right-of-way:
As indicated by the right of way vacations that have already occurred, the City of Edina and the
St. Louis Park Public Works Department have determined that the right-of-way is not needed for
road purposes. The City of Edina was notified of St. Louis Park’s intent to vacate Natchez Ave
S. Utility companies were also notified of the City’s intent to vacate the right-of-ways, and there
are no objections. There is an existing power line in the right-of-way, so the city would retain a
utility easement.
The St. Louis Park Public Works Department also has reviewed the proposal and confirms that
the right-of-way is not needed, and can be vacated.
Proposed residential development in Edina:
An eight lot subdivision, named Acres DuBois, is proposed in the City of Edina. The proposed
subdivision is located adjacent to the Natchez Ave S right-of-way. The application will be
presented to the City of Edina Planning Commission in December. The development proposes
to construct a cul-de-sac extending north of Morningside Road. The attached rendering shows
the location of the development in relation to the Natchez Ave S right-of-way, and the location
of the proposed cul-de-sac.
The developer is not proposing to utilize the Natchez Ave S right-of-way in any way for the
following reasons:
1. The grade changes occurring within the Natchez Ave S right-of-way are in excess of 12
feet. This makes it very difficult and cost prohibitive to construct a road in the existing
Natchez Ave S right-of-way.
2. The proposed cul-de-sac location places the road on the high flat ground which reduces
the amount of grading and ground disturbance. It also allows the homes to have walk-out
basements.
3. The proposed cul-de-sac location allows the developer to preserve the substantial mature
tree growth located in and along the Natchez Ave S right-of-way. The development
proposes to preserve the trees along Natchez Ave S in a conservation easement.
4. The Natchez Ave S right-of-way
does not line up with the existing
Oakdale Ave S/Morningside Road
intersection. If the proposed cul-de-
sac were to be constructed in the
Natchez Ave S right-of-way, or even
next to it, then the resulting
intersection with Morningside Road
would be off-set with the existing
intersection of Oakdale Ave,
extending south of Morningside
Road into Edina.
Natchez Ave S
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Recommendation:
Since the right-of-way is not currently being used, and there is not a likely future need for it, staff
is recommending that it be vacated.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Location Map
Letter from SLP Residents to City Council
Letter from Sarah Hardy, Edina Resident
Wooddale Park Plat
Rendering of Proposed Development, “Acres DuBois”
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE
NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the 500 feet of right-of-way proposed to be vacated has
been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on
November 22, 2012 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and
has determined that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best
interest of the public that said 500 feet of right-of-way be vacated.
Section 2. The following described right-of-way as now dedicated and laid out within
the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of Natchez Avenue South (formerly known as West Avenue) as dedicated in
WOODDALE PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, extending 500 feet north of
Morningside Road (formerly known as W. 43½ Street) to the south line of the North Half
of Lot 3, Block 9, of said WOODDALE PARK.
Retaining a 20 foot easement for utility and drainage purposes over, under, across and
through said Natchez Avenue South.
Section 3. The City of St. Louis Park shall retain any and all easements that may
exist in, over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and
public utility purposes.
Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading December 3, 2012
Second Reading December 17, 2012
Date of Publication December 27, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect January 11, 2012
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
LOCATION MAP
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Letter to City Council from St. Louis Park Residents
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Letter to City Council from St. Louis Park residents – attachment
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Letter to City Council from St. Louis Park residents – attachment
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Letter from Sarah Hardy, Edina resident
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Wooddale Park Plat
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 11
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Natchez Ave S, North of Morningside Road
Rendering of the proposed development, “Acres DuBois”
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6c
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:
Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open Public Hearing, take comments, and then close Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Sara and Henry
Stokman’s application for a variance from the side yard setback to allow an addition to the house
with a 10 inch side yard setback instead of the required five foot side yard setback.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City allow an addition to a home to be 10 inches from a side property line?
BACKGROUND:
Sara and Henry Stokman own the property located at 2917 Quentin Ave S. On August 21, 2012,
the Stokmans applied for a variance to replace an attached one car garage located 10 inches from
the side property line with a living space addition that is larger than the existing garage and
would also be located 10 inches from the side property line. At the October BOZA meeting, the
Stokman’s proposed a two foot setback instead of the requested 10 inches. The BOZA denied
the request. A summary of the BOZA meetings is below; minutes of the meetings are also
attached.
November 5, 2012 – The Stokman’s filed an appeal of the BOZA denial to the City Council.
City Code Section 36-34(b)(4) allows variance applicants to file an appeal to the City Council of
the BOZA decision. The appeal has to be made within 10 calendar days of the BOZA decision.
The letter requesting the appeal is attached. The appeal was correctly filed within the 10 days.
As noted in their letter to the City Council, the Stokman’s are asking the City Council to consider
a two foot setback. As noted below, the BOZA would not consider the revision to allow a two
foot setback. The BOZA offered a three foot setback instead, which the Stokman’s said was not
feasible. Therefore, the BOZA denied their application for a 10 inch side yard setback.
The application and BOZA decision before the City Council is the denial of a variance to allow a
10 inch setback. While staff is recommending that the City Council up hold the BOZA decision
by denying the appeal, it may strike down the BOZA decision, and approve a variance to allow a
setback of 10 inches, or any other dimension the City Council feels appropriate. A summary of
the discussion of appropriate minimum side yard setbacks is below and in the attached minutes.
City Council appeal process:
A public hearing is required for the appeal; therefore, after the presentation is made, the Mayor
should open the public hearing for comments, and then close the hearing when all comments
have been made.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South
A draft Resolution supporting the staff recommendation is attached for the City Council’s
consideration. This Resolution may be adopted at this meeting. If the City Council desires to
adopt a different decision, then it should direct staff to prepare a Resolution supporting that
decision for consideration at the next Council meeting.
Board of Zoning Appeals review process:
September 27, 2012 - The Stokman’s presented their application to the BOZA to allow a living
space addition to the home that would be 10 inches from the side property line. The BOZA
expressed a reluctance to approve a variance that would allow a 10 inch setback, but also
expressed a willingness to consider a variance to allow a three foot setback instead of the
required five feet. The application was tabled for one month to allow the Stokmans time to
revise their plans to show the impacts of what a three foot setback would have.
October 25, 2012 - The application was presented again to the BOZA. After hearing the case,
the BOZA denied the variance application. The Stokman’s showed the BOZA how a three foot
setback would impact the proposed addition. It would result in a seven foot wide addition, which
they considered to be unusable and not worth the expense. They asked the BOZA to
compromise and approve a variance to allow a two foot setback instead of three feet. The BOZA
responded saying they considered the three foot setback to be a compromise from the five foot
side yard setback required by code. The BOZA also said that they have historically considered a
three foot setback to be the minimum side yard setback they would approve. In addition to
safety and fire considerations, three feet is the minimum distance needed to maintain access to
get around the house and to maintain the side of the home without encroaching onto the
neighboring property.
Attachments: Draft Resolution Upholding BOZA Determination
Letter of Appeal to City Council
BOZA Resolution of Denial
BOZA Staff ReportZLWK$WWDFKPHQWV – September 27, 2012
BOZA Staff Report – October 25, 2012
Revised Building Plans Showing Impacts of a Three Foot Setback
BOZA Minutes – September 27, 2012
Petition in Support of Variance
BOZA Minutes (Unofficial) - October 25, 2012
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 12-_______
RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF SARA AND HENRY STOKMAN
OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS’ DECISION
BACKGROUND
• Sara and Henry Stokman live at 2917 Quentin Ave S, described below as:
Lot 19, Block 2, Starings Minnetonka Boulevard Addition
• On August 21, 2012, the Stokmans submitted an application for a variance from section
36-164(f)(5) to allow a living space addition to be located 10 inches from the side
property line instead of the required five feet.
• The variance was considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) on September 27,
2012. The BOZA closed the public hearing, and tabled consideration to the October 25,
2012 meeting.
• The BOZA considered the variance application on October 25, 2012, and denied the
application based upon staff findings.
• On November 5, 2012, the Stokmans submitted a letter requesting an appeal to the City
Council of BOZA’s denial of their variance application.
• This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on December 3, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota:
1. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on
the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
2. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the past and
continues to have a reasonable use.
3. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a structure to be located 0.9 feet from
the side property line instead of the required 5.0 foot setback.
4. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested
variance do not exist.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South
5. The requested 0.9 foot setback would create a potential safety and welfare hazard.
The variance would make it more likely that a fire could spread from one building to another on
the adjacent property, and the 0.9 foot setback makes it difficult to access and maintain the
property and side of the house.
6. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 12-25-VAR are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of Sara and Henry Stokman
of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision is denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 5
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 6
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 7
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 0.9 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 5.0 FOOT SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED ADDITION
LOCATED AT 2917 QUENTIN AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. On August 21, 2012, Sara and Henry Stokman applied for a variance from the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 0.9 foot
side yard setback instead of the required 5.0 foot setback for a single family home
for a proposed addition.
2. The property is located at 2917 Quentin Avenue South and described below as
follows, to wit:
Lot 19, Block 2, Starings Minnetonka Boulevard Addition
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No.
12-25-VAR on September 27, 2012.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of
Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the
requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met
for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following
findings:
a. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary
conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable
use in the past and continues to have a reasonable use.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a structure
to be located 0.9 feet from the side property line instead of the required 5.0 foot
setback.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 8
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships under the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for
granting the requested variance do not exist.
e. The requested 0.9 foot setback would create a potential safety and welfare
hazard. The variance would make it more likely that a fire could spread from one
building to another on the adjacent property, and the 0.9 foot setback makes it
difficult to access and maintain the property and side of the house.
5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 12-25-VAR are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision
for this case.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 4.1 foot variance to the
required 5.0 foot side yard setback for a single family home for the proposed addition.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: September 27, 2012
Effective date: October 8, 2012
___________________________
James Gainsley, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 9
4A Variance to the Side Yard
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying a 4.1 foot variance to the
required 5.0 foot side yard for the construction of a house addition.
SUBJECT:
Sara and Henry Stokman are requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow an
addition to the house with a 0.9 foot setback instead of the required five foot setback, it would be
0.9 feet from the side property line.
REQUEST:
The variance is requested to replace the existing one car attached garage with an addition
consisting of living space in the basement and a bedroom and mudroom on the main floor.
SITE:
R-2 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON
STANDARDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED/EXISTING
DIMENSION
Minimum lot size: 7,200 square feet 6,582 square feet
Minimum lot width: 60 feet 50.00 feet
Minimum front yard: 32 feet 32.7 feet (existing)
Minimum side yard: 5.0 feet 0.9 feet (north side)
8.6 feet (south side)
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 10
BACKGROUND:
Existing Conditions:
The home was constructed in 1932. It is a 1.5 story home with approximately 984 square feet of
living area on the main floor. The existing garage is a one-car garage attached to the north side
of the house. The house has a front yard setback of 32.7 feet, and all the homes on the block
have approximately the same setback. The house is located 8.6 feet from the south side property
line, and 62.6 feet from the rear property line.
The property is rectangular in shape, and is generally flat. The lot is 50 feet wide and 131 feet
long.
The total lot size is 6,582 square feet. The back yard is approximately 3,130 square feet. A 24
foot x 32 foot detached garage was recently constructed in the back yard, and has driveway
access to the alley. The garage is approximately 31 feet away from the house, and there is
approximately 1,550 square feet between the house and the garage.
Proposal:
The existing garage is 194 square feet, with a side wall that is 0.9 feet from the north side
property line. The Applicants are asking for a variance to allow the garage to be removed and
replaced with a 230 square foot bedroom and mudroom addition and to add an additional 230
square foot basement underneath the bedroom and mudroom. This addition would increase the
side wall length from 17.3 feet to 20.0 feet and maintain the existing 0.9 foot side yard.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 11
ANALYSIS:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulty upon the owner of such lot in developing or using
such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in
which said lot is located.
The property has a lot width of 50 feet, which is 10 feet less than the 60 foot minimum lot width
required in the R-2 District, however is typical in St. Louis Park. The lot is also 6,582 square
feet in area, which is only 618 square feet smaller than the 7,200 square feet required by the R-2
District. The lot sizes in this neighborhood vary from 40 feet to 75 feet. All but two lots on the
Applicant’s side of the block are 50 feet wide. The remaining two are 66 feet wide.
A typical home can be constructed on a 50 and a 40 foot wide lot and additions to it built without
the need for variances. To this point, the City is routinely granting building permits for living
space additions to homes on 40 and 50 foot wide lots without variances.
Variances have been granted in the past for garages due to lot width only because the shape of a
garage cannot be varied to meet setbacks, and because there are few options for locating the
garage on the property. For example, a small two car garage has to be at least 20 feet wide to
accommodate two vehicles, and it is typically located to provide direct access to the kitchen. In
these circumstances, the lot width can pose a practical difficulty in building a two-car garage that
meets the required side yard setback. Also in these cases when a variance to the side yard is
granted for an attached garage, the BOZA includes a condition of the variance stating that the
variance is for the garage only, and any living space additions have to meet the side setback
required by the zoning district.
Because living space can be shaped and constructed in many ways to meet the required setbacks,
it is difficult to say that a 50 foot wide lot creates a practical difficulty to construct a living space
addition. Therefore, staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
As noted above, all of the homes in this neighborhood are located on properties that range from
40 to 75 feet in width. They are all relatively flat and serviced by an alley. This property is
unique in that the attached garage was constructed 0.9 feet from the side property line. This
unique structure, however, does not prevent a reasonable sized addition from being constructed
to the back of the home or to the second level.
Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 12
A substantial property right is typically thought to be something that is vital to the use of the
property and is typical of other homes in the City. A garage is an example of something the City
has considered to be a substantial property right in the past. The construction of a single family
home that otherwise could not be built without a variance could be considered a substantial
property right. Additional living space could also be considered a substantial property right,
however, that does not preclude the argument that an addition could be constructed without a
variance.
In this case, the Applicants are asking for a variance to allow a guest bedroom, mudroom and a
storage room in the basement to be constructed 0.9 feet from the side property line. Staff
believes a variance is not required to preserve a substantial property right in this case for the
following reasons:
1. These living spaces could be constructed in another manner to meet code.
2. A guest bedroom, mudroom and storage space in the home should not be considered
substantial property rights to the extent that the City will grant variances to allow them.
Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Three of the principal reasons for setbacks are to maintain sufficient space between the building
and the property line for maintenance of the home and property, access to the back yard, and to
provide a sufficient distance between the building and the building on the adjacent property to
protect one another from fire damage.
The 0.9 foot setback presents difficulties for the Applicants and the neighbors in the following
manner:
1. The Applicants are responsible for maintaining their side of the house. Currently the
Applicants have to utilize the neighbor’s property to perform any maintenance on their
home such as residing, painting, mowing, landscaping etc. If the neighbor constructs a
fence at the property line or refuses permission to access their property, then maintenance
of their home would have to be performed on the remaining 10 inches along the side of
the house.
2. The proposed 0.9 foot setback would require trespass onto the neighbor’s property to gain
access to the Applicant’s back yard. At any time the neighbor could refuse access onto
their property or construct a fence leaving ten inches between the proposed house and
fence.
In addition to maintenance and access difficulties, the proposed 0.9 foot setback presents a
potential safety and fire hazard. There are some building code regulations that attempt to
mitigate the potential damage to neighboring properties should a building catch on fire. For
example:
1. The state building code requires any wall within five feet of the side property line to be
one hour fire rated.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 13
2. Any wall within three feet of the side property line cannot have any openings such as
doors and windows. These openings provide an opportunity for flames to by-pass the
rated wall, and therefore are not permitted.
The one hour rating provides time for the fire department to get to the scene and either put the
fire out, or contain it before it spreads to or damages the neighboring property. There have been
a couple house fires over the past few years that have resulted in damage to the neighboring
homes despite the fire ratings and approximately eight to ten feet of separation. The requested
0.9 foot setback and the potential for the neighbor to add on to their house at the five foot setback
increases the potential for fire damage to either structure.
Because the proposed 0.9 foot setback creates difficulties to maintain the property and building,
and because it increases the potential for fire damage between the proposed house and the
neighbor’s home, staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
The variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood as long as the
neighbor maintains the existing 18 foot setback from the same property line. If the neighbor
builds an addition to the five foot setback, leaving less than six feet between the two homes, then
the close proximity will have a noticeable effect on the immediate neighborhood. As noted in
criterion four, the 0.9 foot setback has potential for impacting the health and safety of the homes
in the immediate area.
Staff believes the proposal would impact the character, safety and health of the neighborhood,
and therefore believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes the requested variance is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
1. As noted above, the intent of the setbacks is to provide space to maintain the property and
structure, to provide access to the back yard, and to minimize the threat of fire spreading
from one structure to the structure on the adjacent property. The 0.9 foot setback makes
maintenance and access very difficult. It also decreases the potential separation between
structures on this property and the adjacent property to six feet measured wall to wall,
five feet measured to the eaves.
2. The Zoning Ordinance regulates how much of the property can be covered with
structures by establishing setbacks, maximum ground floor area ratios and by limiting the
size of a detached garage that can be built on the property. The Applicants constructed a
24 foot by 32 foot detached garage in their back yard in 2011. This is the largest possible
detached garage that can be built on the property given the size of the existing back yard.
By deciding to build this size of a detached garage, they gave up their ability to construct
an addition on the back of the house that extends further back than the existing dining
room.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 14
The Zoning Ordinance intentionally limits the maximum ground floor area of the home
because of the large detached garage that was built. Granting a variance to the side yard
allows the Applicants to build, with future additions, a house with a larger ground floor
area than would otherwise be permitted due to the large garage.
In the Applicant’s letter, they state that they believe the request is in keeping with Minnesota
State Statute 394.36, Subd 4. Nonconformities; certain classes of property. They quote the
following section of that statute:
“This subdivision applies to homestead and non-homestead residential real estate and
seasonal residential real estate occupied for recreational purposes. Except as otherwise
provided by law, a nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises
existing at the time of the adoption of an official control under this chapter, may be
continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or
improvement…”.
State Statute 394.36 pertains to County regulations. The State Statutes pertaining to how
municipalities may treat nonconformities is found in section 462.357, Subd 1e Nonconformities.
While it is a different section of the State Statutes, the language is nearly identical. Both sections
end with the same restriction:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or
occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control
under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion…”. (The Statute goes on to
explain that the nonconformity cannot be continued if too much time lapses after it was
removed or destroyed.)
The Applicants are proposing to expand the nonconformity by making the wall bigger, and by
adding a basement that is also 0.9 feet from the property line. Therefore, staff believes the
proposal does not meet the intent of the State Statute.
State Statute 462.357 Subd 1e(b) also states that a municipality may impose additional
reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or
safety. In order to protect the adjacent property, staff required the proposed addition meet the
five foot setback.
Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable difficulty.
The proposed addition is for a guest bedroom, mudroom and storage in the basement. Staff
believes these uses are a convenience to a property owner as opposed to more substantial needs
such as a kitchen or garage. Staff also believes additions to the structure can be built to facilitate
most, if not all, of these uses without a variance.
Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 15
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the proposed application for a 4.1 foot variance to the required 5.0 foot setback
does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends
adoption of the attached Resolution denying a 4.1 foot variance to the required 5.0 foot setback
for the proposed house addition.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution denying a 4.1 foot variance
Letter from Applicant
Survey
Existing Elevations/Floor Plans
Proposed Elevations/Floor Plans
Excerpt of State Statute 462.357, Subd 1e - Nonconformities.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 16
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 17
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 18
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 19
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 20
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 21
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 22
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 23
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 24
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 25
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 26
Excerpt of Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subd 1e
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 27
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting of October 25, 2012
4A Variance to the Side Yard
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying a 4.1 foot variance to the
required 5.0 foot side yard for the construction of a house addition.
SUBJECT:
Sara and Henry Stokman are requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow an
addition to the house with a 0.9 foot setback instead of the required five foot setback, it would be
0.9 feet from the side property line.
REQUEST:
The variance is requested to replace the existing one car attached garage with an addition
consisting of living space in the basement and a bedroom and mudroom on the main floor.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) reviewed the application and conducted the public
hearing on September 27, 2012.
The BOZA made a motion to continue the request until the October 25, 2012 so the applicant can
present an alternative showing a three foot side setback.
Since the September meeting, the applicants met with the neighbor to discuss the option of
purchasing two feet of their land. This would give them a three foot setback to the new property
line, and may meet some of the concerns expressed by the BOZA. While the neighbor was
willing to sell the land, they ran into problems with the lender that holds title on the property. So
this is no longer an option.
As of the date of this report, the applicants are still working with the builder to resolve the
BOZA concerns while meeting the needs of the applicant. Additional materials for the BOZA to
review have not been submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BOZA adopt the resolution of denial as submitted on September 27,
2012. A copy of the resolution is attached to the report for review.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
ATTACHMENTS:
September 27, 2012 Staff report to BOZA with attachments.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 28
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 29
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 30
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 31
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 32
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 33
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 34
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 35
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 36
EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on September 27,
2012, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota – Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Others: Tom Scott, City Attorney
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2011
Chair Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2011. The
motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Sara
and Henry Stokman are requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow
an addition to the house with a 0.9 foot setback instead of the required five foot
setback. The variance is requested to replace the existing one car attached garage
with an addition consisting of living space in the basement and a bedroom and
mudroom on the main floor.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the seven variance criterion. He said staff believes the
proposed application does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance
and, therefore, recommends denial.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 37
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 2
Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Henry Stokman, applicant, stated that what might be misconstrued is that they are
trying to replace and fix the existing foundation under the garage. They are not
advocating for an addition on the house. The existing foundation is not a frost
footing and is failing, crumbling and pulling the garage away from the house. He
said they are asking to be able to fix and replace with a structure that is useful to
them but maintains integrity and architectural uniqueness of the house and also
helps increase the value of their property and the value of the neighbors’
properties. He said they are doing this as responsible homeowners and being
responsible members of the neighborhood and St. Louis Park. He said the
distance to the property line is not ideal. Mr. Stokman asked the board to take
that into consideration when evaluating their request. He said he understood that
variances of this nature and of this proximity to property line normally are not
granted. He asked the board to look at the situation and grant the variance as all
they are trying to do is fix the foundation and build a structure that is on the
existing footprint. Mr. Stokman said they have spoken with neighbors about their
proposal. He provided 13 signatures of support to the Chair and the board.
Sara Stokman, applicant, said when she bought the house, she knew the
foundation was failing. When they built their detached garage they knew they
were very close to the property line and there was a sense of being grandfathered
in. She said it was disappointing to end up making a request for a variance. She
said they just want to use the existing footprint so they can maintain the roofline
and what they like about the house today, trying to make it as functional as
possible. She spoke about public safety. She said the neighbor is definitely
within her right to put an addition on her house and build up to five feet of the
property line. That would still leave them with six feet in-between.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the neighbor to the north is included in the
signature document.
Ms. Stokman said that neighbor came in person to the meeting.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the failing foundation is integrally attached to the
house foundation.
Mr. Stokman responded that there is block underneath the garage but it does not
go down three feet to the proper depth.
Commissioner Solmer said what he is trying to determine is that the failure of the
garage foundation is not damaging the basement wall of the house.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 38
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Stokman said when the house was inspected; they were warned that if
something was not repaired it could present a problem to the foundation of the
basement and the remainder of the house.
Chair Gainsley said he didn’t think BOZA was allowed to consider future events
without there being any substantial evidence for them.
Ron Sonnek, Sicora Design Build, presented photos of the side foundation of the
garage. He described the slab as a floating slab. He said the floating slab is
most likely pinned into the existing foundation of the house. He said when those
do not go 42-48 inches deep, a lot of the concrete contractors at that time would
still re-rod those foundations into the existing foundation of the house in order to
help stabilize the foundation. At some time there will be an issue that will affect
the foundation of the house. He said the foundation is failing and needs to be
dealt with and remedied. Mr. Sonnek said it is perfectly allowable by building
code to build up to the property line as long as a proper firewall is built. He said
a firewall would be required for the new construction.
Chair Gainsley asked about city requirements.
Mr. Morrison said regardless of the nature of the variance, anything within 5 feet
of the property line has to be fire rated, and that openings in the wall are not
permitted if the setback is 3 feet or less.
Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Morrison if any of the applicant or builder comments
were in conflict with the staff report or presentation.
Mr. Morrison responded that it is not known if the foundation is re-rodded or if
there is damage to the structure right now. He said it sounds like there isn’t
damage right now, but there is potential in the future. He said as far as how it is
attached to the house, it does sound like technically it isn’t known for certain
other than there is a pattern in the city for this type of construction.
Kris Kauffmann, 2913 Quentin Ave. S., said she is the neighbor directly to the
north. She said she has no objections to the variance request and supports it. She
said she’s lived there for 20 years and the garage has been in that same space the
whole time and it doesn’t affect her in any way. Ms. Kauffmann said she hopes
the variance will be granted as she supports the Stokman’s request and doesn’t
believe the variance will impact her.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer said she doesn’t like a setback of less than 1 foot, but she’d
like to get something done with the property and doesn’t know what can be done
to make it workable for everyone.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 39
Official Minutes
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 27, 2012
Page 4
Commissioner Solmer said he understands the applicant has the right to rebuild
within the existing footprint, but they are looking to increase it in every dimension
except the side width. There will be more nonconformance and it will be more
permanent and the existing neighbor may not care about this but in the future it
could be different.
There was a discussion about the state statute allowing nonconformities to be
replaced to the exact same dimensions. Mr. Morrison said it does have to meet
code and the city can put restrictions on it if there are safety welfare or building
code concerns. He said in the case of a 1 ft. setback the city would ask that it be
pulled back more.
Commissioner Roberts said he’d be more comfortable if it was a 2 foot setback
from the side yard. He said even though the footprint is expanding a little bit it
isn’t intensifying the use of the land.
There was a discussion about needing more detail for resolution findings if the
board wished to recommend approval.
Chair Gainsley reopened the public hearing. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if
they could come up with an alternative plan that encompasses the discussion
points which have been made, submit it to the city, and return to the board.
Mr. Stokman said he thought they could do that.
Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to
speak.
Commissioner Roberts made a motion to continue the request to the next Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting, October 25th. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 40
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 41
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 42
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c) Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 43
EXCERPTS OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2012
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on October 25, 2012,
at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota –
Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Solmer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of September 27,
2012. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
said a survey was submitted after agenda materials were provided to the board
that illustrates what an addition would look like if it met a 3 foot setback. Mr.
Morrison said the staff recommendation at the September 27, 2012 meeting was
for denial to maintain a 10 inch setback with a larger addition. He said if the
applicant agreed to go ahead with a 3 foot setback, staff would recommend
approval of that request based on the findings which he reviewed.
Commissioner Bloyer asked if there was a concern that the 3 foot variance would
set a precedent.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 44
Mr. Morrison responded that each application is reviewed on the merits presented
for that specific application.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Henry Stokman, applicant, showed the revised floor plan to the board. He said
the actual garage space is only 10 feet in diameter and losing 3 feet is quite
substantial. Mr. Stokman said he understands that economic hardship isn’t
enough for a variance, but felt from an investment standpoint in time, money,
livability, and usefulness; it makes it difficult to move forward with that plan.
Mr. Stokman asked if the board would consider meeting in the middle with a 2
foot setback from the property line. He said in their situation, and based on the
current proximity of their garage in relation to the property line, they feel like
they are stuck.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if the applicant would not proceed with a 3 foot setback.
Mr. Stokman responded that he didn’t think they would go ahead with a 3 foot
setback.
Vice Chair Solmer said he believed it was the consensus at the September 27th
meeting that the board was meeting the applicant in the middle by proposing a 3
foot setback.
Mr. Stokman said he agreed, but felt most of the properties in St. Louis Park were
non-conforming and most of the variances granted are at 3 feet. He said after
redrawing the plans and looking at the size of the rooms, he said it doesn’t make
sense to do it with a 3 ft. setback.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair made a motion to deny a 4.1 foot variance to the required 5.0 foot side
yard for the construction of a house addition. The motion passed on a vote 2-1
(Bloyer no).
Mr. Morrison read the appeal statement. The appeal period expires on November
5, 2012.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 6c)
Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Page 45
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending Chapter
32 of the City Code establishing a water access charge (WAC), and to set the second reading for
December 17, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend the City Code to
establish a water access charge?
SUMMARY: A water access charge (WAC) is used by cities as a “buy-in” charge for new
development into the existing water infrastructure. It mitigates existing customers from having to
subsidize the impact of new developments on the city’s water system. Implementing a WAC
adds predictability to the rate structure, as additional infrastructure needed to increase capacity
would be covered by those customers creating the need. This also reduces the potential for
bonding for water infrastructure, although it would add to development costs and possibly
increasing the need for TIF assistance for certain projects.
At the October 15, 2012 Study Session, it was the consensus of the City Council to move
forward on establishing the WAC. If adopted and approved at second reading on December 17,
the ordinance will go into effect as of January 11, 2013 for any projects that have not been issued
building permits.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The water access charge will be set by
resolution after the ordinance is adopted.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Ordinance
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening City M anager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: First Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: A water access charge (WAC) is used by cities as a “buy-in” charge for new
development into the existing water infrastructure. St. Louis Park’s existing customers have paid
for the current infrastructure and capacity through water usage rates. This creates a potential
fairness issue when new development comes and adds to the needed capacity, as the current
customers are subsidizing new developments. If the needed capacity continues to increase, staff
estimates that approximately $3,000,000 in additional infrastructure would be needed based on
the current Comprehensive Plan the City adopted. The City has a Sewer Availability Charge
(SAC), however, it is a charge from Met Council and the City acts as the pass-through. The
charge is $2,365 per SAC unit for 2012, and is set by Met Council annually.
Implementing a WAC adds predictability to the rate structure, as additional infrastructure needed
to increase capacity would be covered by those customers creating the need. This also reduces
the potential for bonding for water infrastructure. Adding a WAC would increase costs for
developers though, and possibly increase the need for TIF assistance if the redevelopment was
located in a TIF district and merited the assistance.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: At the October 15, 2012 Study Session, the City Council
discussed implementing a water access charge and it was the consensus of the City Council to
move forward with the WAC. This ordinance is presented at first reading to amend the City
Code to establish the WAC.
The proposed WAC is $750, and is based on the additional future infrastructure projected to be
needed along with the estimated number of additional WAC units generated over the next 20
years, which is estimated to be 4,000. The calculation of the WAC unit would be tied to the SAC
unit calculation. This is common practice amongst cities. One SAC unit is essentially equal to a
single family home. The setting of the WAC will be presented by resolution in a separate action
for consideration by the Council.
NEXT STEPS: If adopted and approved at second reading on December 17, the ordinance will
go into effect as of January 11, 2013 for any projects that have not been issued building permits.
The charge would be collected with the building permit fee, and several known potential
developments have been made aware of this possibility for 2013.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: First Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 32 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE
ESTABLISHING A WATER ACCESS CHARGE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 32 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to add the
following section:
Sec. 32-33. Water Access Charge.
In all areas and for all uses where city water services is available, at the time an
application is filed with the city for a new or enlarged water service, a water access charge
(WAC) must be paid to the city. This charge does not apply to water service maintenance work
unless the water service is enlarged. The city council may, from time to time, set the WAC by
resolution.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect January 11, 2013.
First Reading December 3, 2012
Second Reading December 17, 2012
Date of Publication December 27, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect January 11, 2013
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance amending the Outdoor Lighting
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What should be the appropriate and enforceable lighting standards for St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council discussed revisions to the lighting ordinance at several study sessions this year.
On July 18, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, and on September 24, 2012
the City Council passed the first reading of the ordinance. The ordinance was discussed at two
additional Study Sessions. At the November 26, 2012 study session, the Council consensus was
to proceed with the second reading of the ordinance, without major changes from the first
reading. Existing lighting facilities will have to come into compliance with glare requirements if
the facility is expanded or when fixtures are replaced. An addition to the ordinance will require
proposed landscape measures be included at the time a lighting plan is submitted to help to
screen lighting from adjacent properties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Excerpt City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2012
Excerpt Study Session Meeting Minutes October 22, 2012
Excerpt Unofficial City Council Meeting Minutes November 26, 2012
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-363
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-363 Outdoor lighting, is hereby
replaced in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 36-363 Outdoor lighting.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to minimize the adverse effect of light and glare on
operators of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and on residential and other land uses in the vicinity of
a light source in order to promote traffic safety and to prevent the nuisances associated with the
intrusion of spill light and glare.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all outdoor lighting, except lighting
for signs which are covered under section 36-362, and for street lighting within public rights-of-
way.
(c) Definitions. The following words; terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning.
Cutoff or Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner that no
more than 2.5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more
than 10 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Direct Light – Light emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser,
or through the refractor or other diffuser lens, of a luminaire.
Footcandle – The basic unit of illuminance or the amount of light falling on a surface. One
footcandle is approximately equal to the illuminance produced by a light source of one candle in
intensity, measured on a surface at a distance of one foot above grade. Footcandles can be
measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle or light meter.
Full Cutoff or Fully Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no light occurs above the horizontal plane and no more than 10 percent of its light
occurs above 80 degrees.
Glare – The sensation produced directly by a light source or indirectly from reflective
surfaces within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are
adapted, which can cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
The magnitude of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source,
and on the brightness level to which the eyes are adapted.
Illuminance – The amount of light falling on any point of a surface, typically measured in
footcandles (or lux in the metric system).
Indirect Light – Direct light that has been reflected or scattered off of other surfaces.
Lamp – The component of the luminaire that actually produces the light, more commonly
known as a bulb.
Light Spill – Light that falls beyond the boundaries of the property on which the lighting
installation is located and because of quantitative, directional or spectral content causes
annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
Lumen – A unit used to measure the actual amount of light that is produced by a light source.
The lumen quantifies the amount of light energy produced by a lamp at the lamp, not by the
energy input, which is indicated by the wattage. For example, a 75-watt incandescent lamp can
produce 1,000 lumens while a 70-watt high-pressure sodium lamp can produce 6,000 lumens.
Luminaire or Fixture – The complete lighting assembly or fixture (including but not limited
to the lamps, housing, ballasts, photocells, reflectors, lenses, shields, visors, louvers) but not the
support assembly (poles or mounting brackets).
Mounting Height – The vertical distance as measured from the ground directly below the
centerline of the luminaire to the lowest light-emitting part of the luminaire.
Ornamental Lighting – Lighting that is installed mainly or entirely for its decorative effect
rather than as an aid to visibility.
Semi Cutoff or Partially Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no more than 5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture,
and no more than 20 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Shielded – A luminaire from which no direct glare is visible at normal viewing angles by
virtue of its being properly located, aimed, oriented, and properly fitted with spill and glare
control devices, such as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts, inserts, visors and reflectors.
(d) General provisions.
(1) Lighting plan. Submittal of a lighting plan shall be required to ensure compliance with
this section for all new development, redevelopment, and additions other than single-
family and two-family dwelling units. The city may also require a lighting plan for any
proposed new light source. This lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A site plan showing locations of buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all
proposed outdoor lighting fixtures;
b. Proposed mounting height of each outdoor lighting fixture;
c. Descriptions of each proposed outdoor lighting fixture including but not limited to
manufacturers catalog specifications sheets, photometric data, IESNA “cutoff” fixture
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
designation, glare control package, type of lamp (e.g. high pressure sodium, metal
halide, mercury vapor, fluorescent induction), lamp color temperature, and on/off
control devices.
d. An illuminance grid (point-by-point) plot of footcandles overlaid on the site plan,
plotted out to 0.0 footcandles, indicating the location and aiming of outdoor lighting
fixtures in compliance with the regulations of this section.
(2) Maximum illuminance levels. Outdoor lighting shall not exceed the maximum maintained
illuminance levels as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(3) Measurement. Post-installation lighting levels shall be measured after dark at the
property line of the adjacent property by facing a light meter directly at the light source at
3 feet above grade.
(4) Spill light and glare. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and arranged to limit spill light
and glare on adjacent properties. Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed five-tenths
(0.5) footcandle when the source of light abuts any residential property or one (1.0)
footcandles when the source of light abuts any commercial or industrial property, as
measured at the property line of the adjoining use.
(5) Hours of operation. The city may limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting
equipment if the city believes it necessary to reduce the impact of light on the
surrounding neighborhood.
(6) Prohibited lighting. No flickering or flashing lights shall be permitted.
(7) Luminaire design.
a. For the lighting of predominantly horizontal surfaces, luminaires shall be aimed
straight down and shall meet full cutoff criteria unless ornamental light fixtures are
installed in the manner provided in a site and building plan approved by the city.
Ornamental fixtures may be approved when the developer can demonstrate that
undesirable off-site impacts stemming from direct or reflected views of the light
source are eliminated by the fixture design or location of the lighting fixture.
b. For the lighting of predominantly non-horizontal surfaces, such as building facades,
landscaping, fountains, displays and statuary, luminaires shall be located, aimed and
shielded so as to not project their beam onto abutting properties, past the object being
illuminated, skyward or onto a public roadway. The lighting shall be fitted with such
devices as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts or visors to minimize spill light
and glare impacts.
(8) Maximum mounting height. Light poles or standards for exterior lighting shall not exceed
a height of 45 feet, except that poles or standards on the top level of parking structures
shall not exceed 25 feet.
(e) Recreational lighting provisions. Because of its unique requirements for nighttime visibility
of recreational activities and limited days/hours of operation, outdoor recreational facility
lighting is exempt from the outdoor lighting standards of section (d) (2) through (8) above. An
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
outdoor recreational facility that has illuminated playing fields, courts or performance spaces
shall be subject to the following standards:
(1) Luminaire design. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be directionally
shielded. Lighting fixtures shall also be aimed to ensure that their beams fall within the
primary playing area of the fields/courts/tracks or primary performance space and
immediate surroundings so that spill light and glare on adjacent properties are minimized.
(2) Glare control. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be from a manufacturer that
offers a glare control package and it shall be fitted with the manufacturer’s strongest glare
reducing package.
(3) Maximum illuminance levels. All outdoor recreational lighting installations shall be
designed to achieve no greater than the maximum illuminance levels for the proposed
recreational activity as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(4) Maximum spill light levels. Spill light shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
given the unique illumination constraints of the outdoor recreational facility. Since
outdoor recreational facilities require much higher lighting levels than other outdoor
lighting uses and are in operation for limited periods of time, the maximum spill light
level allowed is also higher. When an outdoor recreational facility abuts a residential
dwelling unit, it shall be designed so that the illumination at the residential property
boundary line that is attributable to the recreational lighting does not exceed 1.5
maximum vertical footcandles.
(5) Maximum mounting height. The mounting height of outdoor recreational lighting fixtures
shall not exceed a maximum height of eighty (80) feet. The City Council may approve
additional height if it is shown as necessary to reduce spill and glare and has no
additional adverse impacts.
(6) Hours of operation. The use of outdoor recreational lighting shall not be permitted
between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The main lighting shall be turned off no
later than one hour after an event ends. Where technically feasible, a low level lighting
system shall be installed to be used for patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime
maintenance and other closing activities.
(7) Visual impact plan. To assist the City in determining whether the potential impacts of
proposed outdoor recreational lighting have been suitably managed, applications for
illuminating outdoor recreational facilities shall be accompanied not only with the
information required under section (d) (1) above but also by a visual impact plan that
contains the following:
a. Plan views containing a layout of the outdoor recreational facility, showing light pole
locations the location of abutting residential properties and structures, and proposed
landscape measures that will screen lighting from adjacent properties.
b. Elevations containing pole and luminaire mounting heights, and luminaire arrays for
each pole location.
c. Light scans in the maximum vertical plane containing illuminance plots at the
boundary of the adjacent property, taken at a height of three (3) feet.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
d. Proposed frequency of use of the outdoor recreational facility during hours of darkness
on a month-by-month basis and proposed time when the recreational lighting will be
switched off.
e. A narrative describing the measures proposed to achieve minimum off-site
disturbance, including landscape screening.
(8) Subsections (e)(5) and (6) shall apply to all outdoor recreational facilities existing as of
the effective date of this Ordinance. Subsection (e) shall apply in its entirety to any new
outdoor recreational facility, the expansion of an existing facility, upon replacement of
the luminaires or fixtures or upon any reconfiguration of existing lighting installations.
Outdoor recreational lighting installations existing as of the effective date of this
Ordinance may continue to be operated in their existing configuration, including repair
and maintenance, so long as there is no increase in maximum illuminance levels, light
spill or glare.
Sec. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-19-ZA).
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-19-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. Section 1 of this Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Section 2 of this Ordinance shall take effect twenty days after its publication.
Public Hearing July 18, 2012
First Reading September 24, 2012
Second Reading December 3, 2012
Date of Publication December 13, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect December 28, 2012
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
OUTDOOR LIGHTING
This ordinance states that Section 36-363 Outdoor Lighting will be replaced in its entirety.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 3, 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: December 13, 2012
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Excerpt from Council Meeting September 24, 2012
8b. First Reading – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that the Ordinance amendment updates
existing lighting regulations to minimize glare and spillover light on adjacent properties,
addresses the feasibility of achieving the City's requirements related to seeing a light source from
off-site, and clarifies the measurement methods used in measuring light. She stated the City
hired Jeff Miller from HKGi and Mr. Miller researched outdoor lighting regulations and prepared
a draft Ordinance, which was discussed with Council in April and July this year. She indicated
this Ordinance reflects the comments received at the study session including adding a low
lighting option at athletic fields when events are finished and also adding a provision that
landscaping can be used for screening the lighting at athletic fields. She stated that all existing
outdoor lighting facilities will be required to comply with the Ordinance if the facility expands
its operations or as fixtures are replaced, noting that typical lighting replacement occurs every
four to fifteen years so it will take a bit of time until all athletic fields are in compliance but over
time there will be a permanent reduction in light spill and glare.
Mayor Jacobs asked if anyone would like to address the Council.
Mr. Lee Snitzer 2504 Quentin, appeared before the City Council and stated he did not feel the
proposed amendment does enough to minimize glare and spillover light. He stated he lives
adjacent to Benilde and the City earlier granted Benilde a special use permit to have that field in
a residential neighborhood where property values exceed $250,000. He stated that Section 6 of
the Ordinance dealing with hours of operation appears to expand the hours of operation allowing
use of lighting up to 11:00 p.m. and requested that the City consider 10:00 p.m. as a reasonable
time that outdoor lights be required to be turned off because most activities are over between
9:00 and 9:30 p.m. He stated the activity on the Benilde field is not what they anticipated and
they were told the field would be used 1-2 nights per week but the field's lights are on seven
nights per week. He noted most City parks have two courses of lights but Benilde has three
courses of lights, which creates more light pollution and glare. He suggested the City consider
requiring all fixtures to be painted black now because that would cut down the glare from the
shiny fixtures. He added he appreciated the City Council's sensitivity to the issue.
Councilmember Sanger stated the previous ordinance provided there should not be spillover light
and glare in neighborhoods because the light pollution goes into the nearby homes and into the
eyes of drivers. She understood that the City did not think it was possible to control this or
eliminate it entirely, but when given suggestions on how to minimize it, the City has an
obligation to test them. She stated she is opposed to the proposed amendments because a lot of
light pollution will enter into homes of nearby residents and her concern was that the City has
not struck a good balance with the needs and rights of property owners living nearby. She stated
her biggest concern was there is no limitation on use of the fields and these fields can be used
seven nights a week and indicated she would feel better if a balance could be struck, e.g., the
lights cannot be on more than "x" number of nights per week. She stated she was also concerned
about how the City got to this point in the first place, stating this issue has come up in other parts
of the community and the issues at Benilde galvanized the City into taking action. She indicated
Benilde asked for permission to redo their fields and part of the agreement was that Benilde must
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
comply with the Ordinance requirements, but Benilde did not comply as it relates to spillover
glare and rather than enforce the Ordinance, the City relaxed its requirements. She stated she
was not in favor of the Ordinance as drafted and would prefer that Council take another look at
the limitations on how many nights a week that fields can be lit and also the issue regarding other
ways to control glare.
Councilmember Spano asked how Section 7(b) regarding shielding devices would be
implemented to minimize glare impacts.
Ms. McMonigal explained it is expensive to change out all the lights and this Ordinance would
require every athletic field to install the most updated glare packages on their lights when they
are changing out their fixtures. She added that several of the City's fields have already been
updated but it will take some financial planning on the City's part to plan for their eventual
replacement.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the Ordinance require that all fixtures be changed over
within a certain period of time. She stated priority needs to be given to recreational lighting
within a specified distance of residential properties to prevent glare into homes.
Mr. Scott stated that the City Council could require that all fixtures be changed over within a
certain period of time; in the case of Benilde, most if not all of the current facilities are not in
compliance from a glare standpoint and these are non-conforming uses and if the City wanted to
impose a deadline, the City Council could do that.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger to table First Reading pending further discussion of
proposed amendments by Council.
Councilmember Ross stated she felt the Ordinance should require lights off at 10:00 p.m. instead
of 11:00 p.m. and suggested looking at a provision that states if fields are going to be lit past
10:00 p.m. those fields need to be retrofitted now and that might alleviate some of those
problems.
Councilmember Hallfin noted that a majority of the fields are City fields and he felt the
Ordinance was well written. He commended staff for their efforts in drafting the Ordinance after
significant discussion with Council.
The Motion failed for lack of a second.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve First
Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning by
Amending Section 36-363 and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012.
Councilmember Ross stated she agreed with Councilmember Sanger's concerns and requested
Council review the Ordinance in study session prior to the Second Reading.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Excerpt from Study Session October 22, 2012
5. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that most of Council's discussion at the first reading of the
ordinance centered on the issue of controlling glare and felt that the issue was not adequately
addressed. She indicated the ordinance deals with glare by requiring that light fixtures be
changed out to include a glare package, which has been pointed out as very expensive to replace.
She felt that other alternatives should be considered and stated other communities have required
the existing shield around the light to be painted black, which does not completely eliminate
glare but will significantly reduce glare onto neighboring properties. She requested that this
requirement be incorporated into the ordinance as a first step and to provide "x" number of
months for the fixture to be painted. She also stated there may be no need to replace lights to
control glare and it might be possible to replace or augment the shields around the lights and
proposed that the ordinance include a date certain by which the fixtures have the shields replaced
with glare packages or in the alternative to add visors onto the shields to help control the
direction so glare does not go into neighboring houses.
She stated that another provision should require the operator to replace the shields or augment
the shields by a date certain, e.g., two years if they have not already been replaced. She stated
Council also talked about the number of times per week the fields are used and suggested adding
a requirement that if shields are not installed or painted black then those fields should be
restricted to no more than two nights per week. She felt these requirements would achieve a
better balance because the proposed ordinance does not balance the rights of property owners
and added these additional requirements would be cheaper, more effective, and provide an
immediate way of dealing with the issue of glare.
Ms. McMonigal indicated staff would need to research the issue of adding visors to make sure no
weight issues are raised.
Councilmember Sanger stated she understood this has been done elsewhere and felt it was worth
researching further.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that further research to consider the addition of visors was
reasonable and asked that staff explore if there are best practices related to this adding she would
like to see evidence that it actually works to control glare; if it does and the cost is fairly minimal
she felt this would achieve a good balance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Council might want to consider the question of distance
because lights glaring 300' from people's homes is different than lights glaring 700' from
someone's home and suggested using a tiered approach where changes are required, i.e., in those
places closest to people's homes. She stated there are people who cannot use their patios or
decks because they are most directly in the line with the lighting on the fields.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Ms. McMonigal stated that the idea of distance might not matter because they have to light the
fields for safety of the sport.
Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about how the City would enforce the ordinance and the burden
on staff.
Councilmember Sanger stated if there is a concern about requiring compliance for all fields at
once, the ordinance could be structured to require compliance for the closest fields first.
Councilmember Spano felt it was a good idea to look into the idea of painting the fixtures. He
agreed with Mayor Jacobs's concern about the ordinance becoming very cumbersome.
Councilmember Sanger stated the problem specific to Benilde is that they agreed to the
requirements when the City granted their permits and by staff's admission Benilde has not
complied with the glare problem. She added that regardless of what comes out of the ordinance
discussion, the City needs to be more proactive in addressing the Benilde situation and
addressing complaints.
Mr. Harmening stated that Councilmember Sanger's statements were not accurate and advised
there are provisions in the current ordinance that are not enforceable and are not reasonable. He
stated that provisions in the existing code cannot be met by Benilde or by the school district and
the City Attorney has indicated if the City wants him to go to court to enforce the ordinance, it
will not work.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to provide Council with research
regarding the question of painting the light shields including information regarding best practices
and to provide this information in a study session prior to second reading. It was also the
consensus of the majority of the City Council that the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance should not
contain a limitation on the number of evenings per week for lighted athletic fields. It was also
the consensus of the majority of the City Council that the current provision regarding hours of
operation should not be changed.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Excerpt from Unofficial City Council Meeting Minutes November 26, 2012
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and advised that the light shields on the fields can be
painted or changed out to reduce glare. She stated that a manufacturer has indicated that an
advanced glare control package has been developed but requires replacement of the luminaire.
She stated the proposed Ordinance requires that lights include a glare control package when
replaced and the estimated cost for retrofitting light fixtures with the new luminaire assemblies is
approximately $60,000 per athletic field.
Councilmember Ross stated her primary concern was the potential cost to the City to retrofit its
parks and did not want the City to have to retrofit its lighting if the current lighting is not a
problem and neighbors are not complaining. She questioned whether the Ordinance could be
written in such a way that lighting would not need to be replaced if the current lighting is not an
issue for a particular neighborhood.
Councilmember Santa stated a lot of people live near parks and live with the glare but felt that
just because someone lives near a park was not a reason to be inconsiderate of them and some
residents might not complain unless you ask them. She stated she felt the City should swap out
all the lights, as they are due for replacement.
Councilmember Ross agreed that the lights should be replaced as they come due but not before.
Councilmember Sanger felt the City ought to swap out the lighting at all of its parks and that the
City should set a schedule for replacing the lights in its CIP and should also require private fields
to do the same. She stated that Benilde painted some of their lights but not all, which has helped
but has not resolved all of the problems.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was sympathetic to the residents complaining about the
lighting at Benilde and understood their frustration, but did not feel it was a good use of City
money to spend $60,000 per field to swap out the lighting and could not justify spending
approximately $500,000 for this purpose. She stated she was willing to further discuss the
Benilde situation but was not sure if there was a way the City could make it more manageable for
residents.
Councilmember Spano asked if the City could effectively paint the City's light fixtures and how
effective that would be in reducing glare.
Ms. McMonigal replied she did not know the cost of painting the light shields and advised that
the City has been changing out its light fixtures as needed and replacing them with the best glare
restrictive package available. She stated three fixtures have the most recent glare control package
and there are at least four fixtures with no glare control, including the high school and Benilde.
Councilmember Sanger requested confirmation that the replacement of lighting is already in the CIP.
Mr. Harmening replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hallfin felt the City should do its best to eliminate glare at all fields on an as
needed basis and per complaints. He stated he felt Benilde wants to be in compliance with the
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Second Reading - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance and was not sure Benilde could have done anything different in that regard adding
that the recent painting seems to help control glare.
Councilmember Sanger felt the City should prioritize this retrofitting to the extent there is a
problem. She added she felt that Benilde should be required to change out their lights.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about picking and choosing which lights to replace
without some measurable standards by which lights should be replaced.
Councilmember Spano stated he would like the Ordinance to include a more robust mention of
landscaping to shield views of the field as well as to protect homes from glare.
Mayor Jacobs stated he shared Councilmember Mavity's concerns regarding selective
enforcement and spending unnecessary money. He indicated he would like to encourage Benilde
to paint all their lights black and then measure the result.
Mr. Harmening noted that the Ordinance does not speak to requiring replacement within a
certain time period and agreed that the City should not pick and choose which lights are replaced
based on complaints from the neighbors and the Ordinance needs to have a level playing field
that applies to everyone in the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated the Ordinance should include a date certain for replacing lights
and agreed compliance should not be based on complaints. She suggested the City set a
threshold measurement such that if the glare is more than "x" at residential property lines then
the lights need to be replaced within a certain time period; otherwise, the lights need to be
replaced by a certain date.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was comfortable requiring that lights be replaced as they wear out over
the course of time.
Councilmember Ross stated she would be comfortable with a combination of requiring lights to
be replaced as they wear out as well as requiring lights to be replaced that are a problem in a
neighborhood. She added some residents might have to wait a long time for the lights in their
neighborhood to wear out and be replaced.
Councilmember Spano stated he would be comfortable with no timelines if it is determined that
painting the shrouds black reduces glare and makes a noticeable improvement and to replace the
lights as needed.
Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged Councilmember Sanger's concerns but was concerned
about the arbitrary period of time and did not want a time frame written into the Ordinance.
Councilmember Santa stated she did not like the arbitrary periods of time and felt that replacing
the lights as they wear out was sufficient. She noted that the City has already replaced lighting at
five of ten fields and this seems to be a workable plan.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to not include specific time parameters
in the Ordinance and to include only performance standards for new lighting in the Ordinance.
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Grant Municipal Consent (approve the project) - Motion to Adopt Resolution granting Municipal
Consent for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project and approving MnDOT Staff Approved
Layout 3D for S.P. 2734-33.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to provide Municipal Consent for this project?
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 5, 2012, a public hearing was conducted to consider MnDOT’s request for
municipal consent for the reconstruction of Highway 100. Municipal consent is required when
any of the following three conditions are a result of the improvement: Access changes, capacity
increases or decreases, and the acquisition of right of way.
The project was presented by MnDOT staff and included a review of the following:
1. The proposed improvements
2. Right of Way Impacts
3. Estimated construction costs
4. Project schedule
5. Next steps
After presentation of the layout by MnDOT staff (Attachment 1), the City Council and public
were provided the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions. Among the more discussed
issues and topics were the following:
1. Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge – Comments and discussion revolved primarily around
proposed design widths for off-road trails and on-road biking in addition to the roadway
itself.
2. Rock Garden Features/Remains – A desire from residents was expressed to preserve
remains of the Rock Garden - a water feature that once included a small waterfall, a circular
concrete water storage area and a concrete slab to walk across the circular water area.
3. Operational Issues on Local Streets (Utica Avenue) – Comments and concerns were
expressed with regards to snow removal, signage, and other issues with regards to Utica
Avenue and the alley serving properties on Toledo Avenue.
4. Construction Staging – Concerns were expressed with regard to access and maintenance
of traffic during construction. MnDOT stated that during the final design effort and the
development of construction staging plans, the City will be kept informed of how work
will be staged and sequenced. MnDOT also stated their intent not to close the
Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 7 bridges simultaneously.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
The above topics and issues were further discussed at the November 19, 2012 Study Session and
can be summarized as follows:
1. Council expressed a desire to widen the bridge on Minnetonka Boulevard to better
accommodate on-road bicycling. The current MnDOT layout provides for 10-ft wide off-
road trails on each side of the bridge along with 4-ft. wide striped shoulders for on-road
bicycling. MnDOT has stated that any additional cost needed to widen the bridge beyond
the current layout configuration would be the responsibility of the City and/or Hennepin
County. Council determined 5-ft minimum striped shoulders on the bridge were needed
and expressed a preference for 6-ft. wide shoulders. Council expressed a willingness to
pay for the bridge widening costs associated with 5-ft striped shoulders. As directed by
Council, staff contacted Hennepin County officials requesting them to pay additional
costs for 6-ft wide striped shoulders. At this time there has been no response from the
County. The total additional estimated cost for providing 5-ft. shoulders would be
$92,000 and $184,000 for 6-ft. shoulders according to MnDOT (this is an updated
number, the previous estimate was $125,000 and $250,000 respectively). At this point
staff would recommend that Council provide Municipal Consent assuming a 5 ft. striped
shoulder, understanding that flexibility exists to widen it to 6 ft. if the County agrees to
pay for the additional foot on each side of the bridge
MnDOT is able to and has agreed to widen the bridge to accommodate 5-ft or 6-ft
striped shoulders as directed and at City or County cost.
2. With regards to the rock garden, Council did not express interest in expending further
City resources on this item. MnDOT has expressed a willingness to protect or cordon the
rock garden area during the initial stage of construction in the event an outside group
should wish to remove or relocate the remains.
3. Any operational issues on local streets, including snow removal and cut-through traffic
concerns will continue to be addressed by the City in accordance with current practices
and policies.
Other Concurrent Activities
Noise Walls and Environmental Assessment
Concurrent with this municipal consent process, MnDOT is conducting a parallel process with
approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and whether or not to remove noise walls from
the project design plans. MnDOT has indicated intent to release the EA for public comment
sometime late this year or early 2013.
Noise walls are presently included as part of the project layout and design. The State of
Minnesota, in accordance with federal regulations, follows a process that allows for adjacent
property owners to remove the walls from the project should they desire through a voting
procedure. Additional informational meetings to provide residents further information and
clarifications as needed were held on October 16 and October 18.
MnDOT has determined the trail area on the east side of Hwy 100 south of Minnetonka Blvd
benefits from the installation of a noise wall. The trail is deemed a 4(f) property and as
custodian, the City has been assigned votes as a part of the noise wall voting process in this area
of the project. City staff will be contacting other voting eligible residents to gather feedback and
vote as the majority desire. If the City does not vote, that is essentially a vote to retain this noise
wall in the project.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Visual Quality and Project Advisory Groups:
MnDOT has also commenced the process of developing a Visual Quality Process Manual
Development for the project. This process involves a committee to allow for articulation of
community values and objectives to ensure sensitivity to visual quality and aesthetics (including
public art) in the design, similar to procedures utilized for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
project. A committee comprised of representatives from adjacent neighborhoods, institutions
adjacent to the highway, staff, and other interests has been assembled. This committee will be
meeting monthly over the next several months to insure that these values are incorporated into
the design.
MnDOT is also working to form a Project Advisory Committee. This group will meet on a
biannual basis through the design phase and more frequently during actual construction. The
purpose of this committee will be to allow MnDOT to provide current project information and
receive feedback from stakeholders to help better understand and address the many issues that
arise during a project of this magnitude. Specific committee members have not yet been
determined, but it is expected that members will include a wide variety of interests, including
representatives of the many agencies involved (both elected representatives and staff), such as
the City, County, State, the business community, and other stakeholders as appropriate.
Project Schedule:
Based on the current project status and progress made to date, the following schedule is
anticipated at this time:
Municipal Consent Approval Process
City Holds Public Hearing November 5, 2012
Approve Request December 3, 2012
(Deadline to Approve / Deny Request) February 3, 2013
Public Environmental Assessment (EA) Released Late 2012 – Early 2013
Noise wall Voting Process
Ballots and Information Mailed Early October
Information Meetings October 16 and 18, 2012
Voting Period Expires December 28, 2012
Development of Construction Plans and Specifications Fall 2012 - September 2014
EA Process Completed Early 2013
Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014
Open Bids and Award Contract May 2014
Construction Late 2014 - 2016
NEXT STEPS:
Upon approval of the layout by the City, MnDOT will move forward with final design, including
the preparation of plans and specifications. As previously described in this report, separate but
related items such as the Environmental Assessment (EA), noise wall determination, and public
art and visual quality efforts will continue to move forward concurrently with final design.
The City must either approve or disapprove the MnDOT municipal consent request within 90
days of the Public Hearing, or by February 3, 2013. If the Council does neither, then on
February 3, 2013 the time period for action expires, and the MnDOT project will be deemed
approved.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
As stated in previous reports, if the City denies Municipal Consent for the project, MnDOT’s
options are:
1. Make the changes requested by the City (if any)
2. Refer the proposed layout to an Appeal Board
3. Stop the project
4. Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
5. Prepare a new final layout and start the municipal consent process over from
the beginning
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As previously described in MnDOT’s request, the City’s share of the MnDOT project cost at this
time is estimated to be approximately $60,000. As the City continues to work with MnDOT
through final design, including visual quality and public art considerations, the City’s share of
the project cost may increase, depending on the level of improvements desired by the city. In
addition to cost participation in the actual MnDOT project, the City also has several other
obligations related to this project:
Engineering Expenses:
Previous Expenses and Studies $90,000
Additional Engineering Expenses $150,000
Utility Relocations or Improvements:
Stormwater Facilities $600,000
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $1,000,000
Water Facilities $900,000
Utica Ave Reconstruction $250,000
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 and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Attachment 1 – MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D
Attachment 2 – Resolution for Layout Approval
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, MnDOT
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 5
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL
HIGHWAY 100 RECONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) desires to
reconstruct Highway 100 between 36th Street West and 25th ½ Street West; and
WHEREAS, said reconstruction includes the replacement of bridges over Highway 100
at Minnetonka Boulevard, Highway 7, CP Railroad, and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail, as well
as the construction of ramps, noise walls, drainage and utility improvements, and other
associated infrastructure improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the
improvement of Highway 100 within the City of St. Louis Park from approximately 36th Street
West to 25th ½ Street West and seeks the approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation
office, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. 3D S.P. 2734-33
from 36th Street West to 25 ½ Street West, dated September 18, 2012; and
WHEREAS, improvements to city infrastructure and appurtenances have been included
in said final layout.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
Said final layout for the improvement of said Trunk Highway 100 within the corporate limits
of the City of St. Louis Park is hereby approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2012
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 6
Meeting Date: December 3, 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:
Project Report: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2012-0100, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for these
improvements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to take the necessary steps to keep this project on
schedule for construction commencing in April 2013?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) identifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project, which provides for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7, also includes
pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads
in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation
and safety needs of both MnDOT and the City as well as quality of life and redevelopment needs
in this area of the city.
Project Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is to address
deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
intersection. These deficient conditions are resulting in numerous crashes and causing high
levels of congestion. In conjunction with the proposed project, there are also opportunities to
improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across Highway 7 that are anticipated to increase
with the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. In
addition, the transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.
As listed above, the need for the project is centered on the following:
• Improve Vehicle Safety
• Maintain Mobility / Reduce Congestion / Reduce Vehicle Delays
In addition, the following were identified as opportunities to consider in the development of the project:
• Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Movements
• Environmental Improvements (reduce greenhouse gases / air pollution, stormwater
quality improvements, site clean-up activities)
• Foster Economic Development
• Improve Response Time for Emergency Vehicles
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes construction of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. Highway 7 will be raised over Louisiana through
construction of a new bridge. The interchange configuration is a tight diamond design with
roundabouts facilitating the traffic movements at the intersections of the ramp terminals, Lake
Street, and Walker Street (see Attachment 1). This design was selected and developed through a
three ye ar study and engineering analysis that included comparison of ten different concept
designs, a detailed value engineering study and an environmental assessment.
The project incorporates public art and extensive landscape and aesthetic treatments (see
Attachment 2) including:
• Decorative concrete surfacing on the bridge parapet
• Decorative paver work on the sloped and flat surfaces beneath the bridge
• Landmark vertical art work (towers)
• Under bridge lighting with changeable colors
• Decorative street level and pedestrian level lighting
• Extensive landscaping with native trees, shrubs and plants
Construction Impacts
Construction of the project will occur over a two year period. Work is anticipated to begin in
April 2013 progressing through both summer and winter months with the project substantially
complete by fall 2014. Traffic will be maintained on Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue at nearly
all times. A southerly temporary Hwy 7 bypass will be constructed to maintain traffic on
Highway 7 for the first year of construction. Recently revised staging plans will essentially
provide for the following:
• For the first year of construction, maintain 4 lanes of traffic on Highway 7 and provide
left turning movements at the Louisiana intersection; and, maintain 4 traffic lanes on
Louisiana with left turning movements provided at Highway 7 (it may be necessary for
one or two weekend closures on Louisiana Avenue to lower the grade of Louisiana
Avenue at the current intersection location). This change will eliminate the need for
detours during the first year of construction and will continue existing access in the area.
• After the first year of construction, the new Highway 7 Bridge will be built and traffic
will shift from the southerly temporary bypass onto the new Highway 7 mainline in early
summer 2014. Louisiana Avenue will then be constructed one half at a time while
maintaining thru-traffic at nearly all times. During this time, some of the new ramps of
the interchange will be available for use but not at all times as they will also be under
construction in conjunction with Louisiana Ave construction. Access at Walker Street
and Lake Street will also be limited during the construction of Louisiana Avenue.
Therefore, various detour routes will be required for periods of time (possibly several
months) during the summer of 2014.
• Completion of the project will be advanced under the revised staging plans and cost
savings are also expected to be realized. As result, the anticipated substantial completion
of the project is being revised from June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2014.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
Public Process and Business Area Outreach
An extensive public involvement and stakeholder engagement process has been conducted
throughout the all phases of the project development. The process has included seven public
open house meetings, including one public hearing, individual stakeholder meetings, and
communication and project updates provided by mailings, project newsletters and a project
website. Area residents, property owners and business owners have provided comments and
feedback about the project throughout its development.
Recently, staff has provided outreach to the area businesses by holding a series of meetings (4) to
discuss measures and strategies help minimize construction impacts to them during construction.
The major concern of the small businesses is loss of business during construction due to loss of
or restricted access, detour routes, project schedule and duration. The City and its partner
MnDOT have presented information about support and resources available to the businesses that
may minimize these impacts. The recently revised staging plans which eliminate detours during
the first year of construction were also done to minimize construction impacts to the area
businesses. The City and MnDOT will continue working with the area businesses throughout the
remaining course of the project to alter the construction as well as provide the necessary
communications and resources to support them throughout construction of the entire project.
Project Schedule
Final Design and Plan Preparation (Phase 4 Activities) are nearing completion. This includes the
detailed engineering work needed to complete plans and specifications to obtain final MnDOT
project approvals and authorization for bidding. Final plans were submitted to MnDOT in late
October for agency review. Final plan revisions, specification writing, final approval signatures
and bidding authorization will completed by early February, 2013. Advertising for bids is
tentatively scheduled to begin in mid-February with a bid opening occurring in mid-March 2012.
Contract award is anticipated on April, 15, 2013 with construction starting in late April, 2013.
A detailed schedule of remaining activities through the start of construction is presented below:
Activity Target Date
City Council approves project Monday, December 3, 2012
Plans revised and signed by Engineer and City
and submit 100% plans to MnDOT Metro State Aid Friday, December 14, 2012
MnDOT Authorizes Project Friday, February 8, 2013
Advertisement sent to Construction Bulletin & local papers Monday, February 11, 2013
Advertisement in Construction Bulletin (also QuestCDN) Mondays, Feb 18, 25, March 4, 11, 2013
MCES Cooperative Agreement executed by the City February 19, 2013
MnDOT Cooperative Agreement executed by the City No later than March 20, 2013
Bid opening (letting) Thursday, March 21, 2013
DBE clearance through MnDOT EEO office March 15 – April 3, 2013
Cooperative Agreement fully executed by MnDOT No later than April 12, 2013
Award of Contract Monday, April 15, 2013
Start of Construction Monday, April 22, 2013
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Project Costs
Presented below are the latest estimated project costs based on current design work. All of the
funding sources are also presented below:
Current Estimated Project Costs
Construction $18,090,000
Public Art $ 428,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 2,201,500
Construction Engineering (by MnDOT) $ 1,800,000
Remedial Action Plan Administration $ 450,000
Construction Engineering Support (SEH) $ 200,000
Undergrounding Power Lines $ 450,000
Right of Way Acquisition Services (appraisals, title work, attorney fees) $ 100,000
Right of Way (Purchasing land and easements, condemnation costs) $ 2,600,000
Total Costs $26,319,500
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
MnDOT Access Management Funds $1,000,000
MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 594,000
MnDOT (Construction Eng’r - in lieu of funds) $1,800,000
TED Grant (MnDOT & DEED Program) $3,000,000
City Funds (20% construction grant match – source HRA Levy) $2,398,000
City Funds (Preliminary and Final Design Eng’r – source HRA Levy) $2,201,500
City Funds (Right of Way – source HRA Levy) $2,700,000
City - Water and Sewer Utility Funds $ 200,000
City Funds (Misc Const., Public Art, RAP, Eng’r Support - source HRA Levy) $4,357,000
Total Committed Funds $26,319,500
Total City Share $12,295,500
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Directions and focus areas have been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community
aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Resolution
Attachment 1 - Project Layout Drawing
Attachment 2 – Public Art Display
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2012-0100
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 2012-0100
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
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. 2012-0100 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. 2012-0100, are 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
City newspaper 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 December 3, 2012
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
INTERCHANGE LAYOUT
T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE.
High School
St. Louis Park
Park
Louisiana Oaks
Walker St.
W. Lake St.
W. Lake St.Walker St.Fr
onta
ge Rd.
T.H. 7
T.H. 7 Loui
si
ana Ave.
Repu
blic Ave.
Monitor StWalker Pond
Quebec Ave.8/22/2012
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS
ROUNDABOUT APRON
ROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN
250
SCALE IN FEET
Pond
Lake St. Lo
u
isi
a
n
a Av
e.
PROPOSED TRAIL
SAM’S CLUB
GALLERY
FURNITURE
ODDS-N-ENDS
STORAGE
PARK SELF
U SAVE
OAKS APTS.
LOUISIANA
DIALYSIS
DAVITA
BUILDERS
ANDERSON
PHOTO
QUAD
CIPRICO
APTS.
ON SEVEN
NEWPORT
Z SYSTEMS REPAIR
AUTO
PHOENIX
HARDCOAT INC
STATION
HOLIDAY
RENTAL
TRUCK
BUDGET
CLINICS
KASS
PRINTING
PRESSWRITE
GROUP
MEDIA
MAHONEY
SUPPLY
CHURCH
COOPERATIVE
RESOURCES
NORTHERN
GREAT
& AUTO COMPANY
AMERICAN TIRE
370137047525
7505
3715
7300
7420
7201
3750
3745
7003
6509
7001
6516 6512 6504
69006714
7000
70087010
6726
70087020
7015
3400
3361
335533303501
3320
7201
7201
7400
7600
3639
7700
3712
HOUSE
CITY WELLPennsylvania Ave.W. 37th St.
Walker St.
Gorham Ave.Brownlow Ave.Library Ln.
W. Lake St.Service Rd.
Cedar Lake TrailT
aft Av
e.
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject:Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100 Page 6
City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject:Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100
Page 7