HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/05/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MAY 16, 2011
6:30 p.m. 36th Street Art & Highway 7 / Wooddale Bridge Ribbon Cutting –
3575 Wooddale Avenue South (NE corner of 36th)
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes April 25, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments).
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the proposed Assignment of Contract and
authorize the execution of the Consent to Assignment of Contract.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes April 25, 2011
3b. Listening Session Minutes April 27, 2011
3c. Listening Session Minutes April 28, 2011
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes May 2, 2011
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 to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to
regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
Meeting of May 16, 2011
City Council Agenda
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License – Little Szechuan.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application
from Eat Art LLC dba Little Szechuan for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license
to be located at 5377 W. 16th Street with the license term through March 1, 2012.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Major Amendment
to the PUD for Park Summit.
9. Communication
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Immediately Following the City Council Meeting
Discussion Items
1. Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy*
* Report to be delivered Friday, May 13, 2011.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To
make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525
(TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of May 16, 2011
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Waive second reading and adopt the ordinance vacating a utility easement at 3601
Wooddale Avenue and at 5810 37th Street West contained in the agenda materials, and
approve the summary ordinance also contained in the agenda materials for publication
4b. Approve an extension until May 31, 2012 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and final
planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End
4c. Approve resolution authorizing Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to provide alcohol during
the hours of 5:30 to 11 p.m. at the Parktacular Block Party to be held on June 18, 2011
4d. Approve Resolution for the 2011 Intoxicating On-sale and Sunday Liquor License Renewal
for Taher Restaurant Acquisition LLC dba Timber Lodge Steakhouse located at 6501
Wayzata Boulevard for the license year term through March 1, 2012
4e. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes April 13, 2011
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 25, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt,
Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of April 4, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project
EDA Resolutions No. 11-04, 11-05 and 11-06
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the Economic Development
Authority entered into a redevelopment contract with Greco Development for the
Wooddale Pointe project on June 7, 2010. He stated that the redeveloper had a
subsequent environmental investigation conducted on the site which revealed additional
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2011
soil contamination of approximately 7,300 cubic yards consisting of relatively low
petroleum compounds, arsenic, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. He indicated
that removal of the contaminated soil will require special handling and disposal,
estimated at $328,000. He stated that in order to offset these new extraordinary costs, the
EDA will apply for contamination cleanup grants on behalf of Greco Development
through DEED, the Met Council, and Hennepin County. He noted that grant applications
to these agencies are due May 1st and no additional funds are being requested from the
EDA for this project. He noted that the grants are competitive but added that the City is
optimistic about receiving the grant monies since the EDA has demonstrated strong
support for the project as well as a strong interest in seeing the project move forward.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 11-04 Approving a Grant Application to the Department of
Employment and Economic Development and Approving Local Matching Funds on
Behalf of Greco Development.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 11-05 Authorizing Application for the Metropolitan Council Tax
Base Revitalization Account on Behalf of Greco Development.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 11-06 Authorizing Application for a Grant from Hennepin County’s
Environmental Response Fund on Behalf of Greco Development.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the proposed Assignment of Contract and authorize the execution of the
Consent to Assignment of Contract.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA consent to the proposed Assignment of Contract between MSP SLP Apartments,
LLC and its lender?
BACKGROUND:
The City and the EDA entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with MSP SLP
Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) dated April 3, 2000, as amended May 1, 2000 and August
7, 2000 (the “Contract”). Under the Contract, the EDA issued its $3,531,853 Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 2000A (the “TIF Note”) to the Redeveloper, to reimburse it for costs
related to development of the Louisiana Oaks apartments located at the northwest corner of
Louisiana Ave. and Highway 7. Costs for which the Redeveloper was reimbursed included:
demolition, on-site parking, utilities, sidewalks, tree replacement, stop light and turn lane,
landscaping, retaining walls, and other site work.
The Redeveloper is now refinancing its existing loans related to the development, and
Redeveloper’s lender (CWCapital, LLC, the “Lender”) has requested that the EDA consent to an
assignment of the Contract and the TIF Note to the lender as security for the loan. In November,
2001, the City and EDA approved a previous subordination agreement and consent letter related
to MSP Real Estate’s previous lender.
Assignment of Contract
The Lender and Redeveloper propose to execute an Assignment of Contract (the “Assignment”),
under which the Redeveloper collaterally assigns its interests in the Contract and the TIF Note to
the Lender. According to Section 8.2 of the Contract any such Assignment must be approved by
the EDA and any such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Attached to the Assignment
is a Consent to Assignment of Contract (the “Consent”), which Lender requests EDA to execute.
The Consent means that the EDA will consent to the fact that Redeveloper will assign the
Contract and TIF Note to Lender. The consent does not relieve Redeveloper of any of its
obligations under the Contract. It only means that, if the Redeveloper defaults on its loans to the
Lender, the EDA will make payments on the TIF Note to the Lender instead of the Redeveloper,
so long as the Lender continues to perform any obligations under the Contract. The property
remains subject to a minimum assessment agreement, specifying a minimum market value for
the subject property until the TIF Note is paid or terminated. This means that the minimum
market value on the property remains in place even if the Lender forecloses on its mortgage.
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
The EDA attorney has reviewed both the Assignment and the Consent, and recommends
approval of the Consent as consistent with commercial lending practices.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No additional funds are being requested from the EDA for the Consent to Assignment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Assignment of Contract
Consent to Assignment
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT (“Assignment”) is made and entered into as of
the ____ day of May, 2011, by and between MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (“Borrower”) and CWCAPITAL LLC, a Massachusetts limited
liability company, its successors, transferees and assigns (“Lender”).
WHEREAS, Borrower is the owner of an apartment project, commonly known as
Louisiana Oaks Apartments (the “Project”), located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
“Mortgaged Property”); and
WHEREAS, Borrower is the maker of two (2) certain Multifamily Notes, both of even
date herewith, payable to the order of Lender, one in the original principal amount of
$16,500,000.00 (“Note A”) and the second in the original principal amount of $1,600,000.00
(“Note B”), each bearing interest and being payable in accordance with the terms and conditions
therein set forth (together, the “Note”), which Note evidences a loan made by Lender to provide
Borrower with financing for the Mortgaged Property (the “Loan”); and
WHEREAS, Note A and Note B are to be secured by a Multifamily Mortgage,
Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the “Mortgage”) of
even date herewith (Note A, Note B, the Mortgage, and all other documents executed in
connection with the Loan are collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents”); and
WHEREAS, the Mortgaged Property is the subject of tax increment financing under that
certain Contract for Private Development (the “Contract”) dated April 3, 2000, by and among
Borrower, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), and the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as evidenced by that certain Tax Increment Revenue Note (the
“TIF Note”) dated November 20, 2000 by the Authority; and
WHEREAS, Lender has required and Borrower is willing to assign to Lender its rights
under the Contract and the TIF Note as additional security for the Loan.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, Borrower and Lender agree as
follows:
A. Conditions of Assignment
1. Assignment. Borrower hereby transfers, assigns, and sets over to Lender,
its successors and assigns, all of Borrower’s rights, title, and interest in and to, and all of
Borrower’s power and authority to act under, the Contract and the TIF Note. This Assignment is
made as collateral security for the prompt payment of Note A and/or Note B when due (whether
by acceleration or otherwise) and for the performance of all other obligations of Borrower under
the Loan Documents.
2. Security Agreement. This Assignment shall serve as a security agreement
as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code of the Property Jurisdiction and, at any time that
any portion of the Loan remains outstanding, the Lender shall also, in addition to the foregoing,
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
have a security interest in all distributions, profits, income, and monies and claims for
distribution, due and to become due to Borrower under the terms and conditions of, or with
respect to, the Contract and the TIF Note. Lender shall have all the rights of a secured party
under the Uniform Commercial Code of the Property Jurisdiction. Borrower authorizes Lender
to file from time to time all such financing statements as Lender may deem appropriate to perfect
its security interest in the foregoing collateral.
3. Occurrence of Event of Default; Exercise of Rights. Upon receipt by
Borrower of written notice from Lender that an Event of Default (as that term is defined in the
Loan Documents) has occurred and is continuing or a default has occurred and is continuing
which would otherwise permit Lender to accelerate the Loan, Lender shall have the right to
exercise all the rights under the Contract and the TIF Note as Borrower would have as owner of
the Mortgaged Property, and Borrower shall pay to Lender directly all payments received under
the TIF Note. At Lender’s demand, Borrower shall cooperate with Lender and the Authority in
Lender’s assumption of the Contract and comply with any requirements set forth in the Contract
or any other requirements of the Authority required in connection with such assumption, and
surrender the TIF Note to the Authority and comply with any requirements set forth in the TIF
Note or any other requirements of the Authority required in connection with the issuance of a
new TIF note in the name of Lender or its designee or nominee.
Until the occurrence of an Event of Default under Note A and/or Note B or under
any Loan Document, Lender shall not exercise any rights hereunder and Borrower shall be
entitled to all rights under the Contract and the TIF Note.
If the Borrower and the Lender make inconsistent demands on the Authority for
payment under the TIF Note or otherwise challenge the appropriate party to which payment is to
be made, the Authority shall be entitled to pay the disputed amount into escrow with a court of
competent jurisdiction and permit such court to make a determination as to the appropriate
recipient of all such funds. All costs and expenses incurred by the Authority in connection with
any such escrow or litigation relating thereto shall be paid from the funds so paid into escrow
before any such funds are paid to any other recipient thereof. Upon the deposit of any such
payment into escrow in accordance with this paragraph, the Authority’s obligation with respect
to making such payment will be deemed fully satisfied.
4. Obligations. Borrower, by executing this Assignment, agrees that Lender
does not assume any obligations or duties of Borrower concerning the Contract or the TIF Note
until and unless Lender shall exercise its rights hereunder.
B. Power of Attorney
Borrower hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Lender as Borrower’s attorney-in-fact to
demand, receive and enforce Borrower’s rights with respect to the Contract and the TIF Note, to
give appropriate receipts, releases and satisfactions for and on Borrower’s behalf and to do any
and all acts in Borrower’s name or in the name of Lender with the same force and effect as
Borrower could do if this Assignment had not been made. The foregoing appointment shall be
deemed to be coupled with an interest and irrevocable and shall not terminate upon Borrower’s
disability, dissolution, or similar event.
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
C. Representations and Warranties
Borrower hereby represents and warrants to Lender that: (i) the Contract and the
TIF Note are assignable and any previous assignment of Borrower’s interest in the Contract and
the TIF Note have been voided and are of no further force and effect, and (ii) the Contract and
the TIF Note are in full force and effect in accordance with their terms and there are no defaults
thereunder.
D. Covenants
Borrower shall fully perform all of its obligations under the Contract, and
Borrower agrees not to amend, modify, assign, sell, pledge, transfer, mortgage, or otherwise
encumber its interests in the Contract or the TIF Note so long as this Assignment is in effect, or
consent to any transfer, assignment, or other disposition thereof without the written approval of
Lender.
E. Effect of Breach or Default
A default by Borrower under the Contract or breach of this Assignment, which default or breach
continues beyond the expiration of any applicable cure period, shall constitute a default under the
Note and all documents securing the Note.
F. Indemnification
Borrower hereby agrees to indemnify Lender and hold Lender harmless from any loss or
liability, including Lender’s attorneys’ fees, in the event that any of the representations and/or
warranties set forth herein shall prove to be false or untrue in any respect.
G. Governing Law
This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
jurisdiction in which the Property is located, and applicable federal law.
H. Successors and Assigns
This Assignment shall be binding upon Borrower and Lender and their respective successors,
transferees and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by Lender and its
successors, transferees and assigns. Borrower shall not assign any of its rights and obligations
under this Assignment without the prior written consent of Lender.
I. Entire Agreement; Amendments and Waivers
This Assignment contains the complete and entire understanding of the parties as to its subject
matter. No amendment to this Assignment will be valid unless it is made in writing and executed
by the parties to this Assignment. No specific waiver or forbearance for any breach of any of the
terms of this Assignment shall be considered as a general waiver of that or any other term of this
Assignment.
J. Relationship of Parties
Nothing contained in this Assignment shall constitute Lender as a joint venturer, partner or agent
of Borrower, or render Lender liable for any debts, obligations, acts, omissions or representations
of Borrower except as provided herein.
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
K. Enforceability
The determination of invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of any provision of this
Assignment, pursuant to judicial decree, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any
other provision of this Assignment, each of which shall remain in full force and effect.
L. Assignment to Fannie Mae
If Lender assigns its rights under this Assignment to Fannie Mae, all references in this
Assignment to Lender shall be deemed to be references to Fannie Mae.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has caused this Assignment to be executed as of the
day and year first above written.
BORROWER:
MSP SLP APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company
By: __________________________________
Milo Pinkerton
Chief Manager
EDA Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: MSP SLP Apartments Consent to Assignment (Louisiana Oaks Apartments)
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority hereby consents to the assignment of the
Contract and the TIF Note by Borrower to Lender as additional security for the Loan pursuant to
the terms of this Assignment, and acknowledges that Lender may assign its security interest in
the Contract and the TIF Note to Fannie Mae and consents to any such assignment (together, the
“Consent”). This Consent is not to be considered consent for any other or further assignment of
the Contract or the TIF Note (including any interest in the Contract or any payments under the
TIF Note) by Borrower to any other assignee, transferee, or successor in interest.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By:
Its President
By:
Its Executive Director
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 25, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Public Works Director (Mr.
Rardin), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Beautify the Park Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the Proclamation for the 2011 Beautify the Park Initiative and the
2011 environmental events planned in the City.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes April 4, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes April 11, 2011
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.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 25, 2011
4a. Designate Cool Air Mechanical as the lowest responsible bidder for the
dehumidification project in The Rec Center East Arena and authorize execution of
a contract with the firm in the amount of $284,728.00.
4b. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of contract with the firm in the amount of $1,381,042.10 for the 2011
Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 7, Project No. 2010-1000 & 2011-
1400.
4c. Approve the 2011 Neighborhood Grants.
4d. Authorize staff to execute an agreement with NEXGEN for Public Works Asset
Management software licenses and implementation services.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-047 certifying the special assessment for the demolition
costs in the amount of $20,014.13 for the property at 3317 Texas Avenue South.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-048 accepting a donation from Cardiac Science of an
Automated External Defibrillator (AED) valued at $1995 to be used by the Police
Department’s Emergency Response Unit.
4g. Amend Contract No. 29-08 Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire
Department Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and approve Third Amended and
Restated Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Public Safety Purchasing.
4h. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes March 9, 2011.
4i. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2011.
4j. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2011.
4k. Approving for Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, 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. Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution – Issuance of Private Activity
Revenue Bonds for Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
Resolution No. 11-049
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Tom Hansen, Mr. Michael
Mooers, Ms. Sue Skinner (Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School Principal), and Mr. John
Utley (bond counsel, Kennedy and Graven).
Mr. Utley advised that Benilde-St. Margaret’s School is requesting that the City issue
private activity revenue bonds in the amount of $7 million for the purpose of refunding
its existing debt from the 2000 bond issue. He stated that the revenue bonds are not
payable or secured by any assets or property of the City and the assets and taxing
revenues of the City are expressly prevented from being applied to this debt service. He
noted that any nonpayment of the bonds has no impact on the City’s credit rating or on
the City’s ability to borrow for its own purposes. He stated that the City will receive a
fee of 1/8th of one percent from Benilde-St. Margaret’s School and these monies will be
deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation fund.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 25, 2011
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she does not oppose the City’s issuance of the bonds,
but requested that School officials provide a commitment to resolve the ongoing
complaints with respect to the lighting on the athletic fields spilling over into the
neighborhood, which is a violation of City Code, and to resolve the issue within two
weeks.
Benilde-St. Margaret’s Principal Skinner stated that the School is committed to resolving
the issue, but did not feel that two weeks was realistic. She stated that she has not been
directly involved in the matter and that the School’s President has been working with
Opus and the lighting contractor.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the School provide the City with a timeline for
resolving the lighting issue.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-049 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of an Educational Facilities
Revenue Refunding Note (Benilde-St. Margaret’s School Project), Series 2011A, in the
Original Aggregate Principal Amount of $7,000,000; Approving the Form of and
Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Note a Loan Agreement and Certain
Related Documents; and Providing for the Security, Rights, and Remedies with Respect
to the Note.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Blvd.) – Project No.
2010 1100 Resolution No. 11-050
Mr. Olson presented the staff report. He stated that the project is located on Park Center
Boulevard from 500’ south of West 36th Street to 300’ north of Excelsior Boulevard and
will include mill and overlay, repair of curb and gutter, minor storm sewer repairs,
sidewalk repairs, pedestrian curb ramp updates, and new striping. He noted that the
project will utilize State Aid funds and Mn/DOT approval is expected in early May. He
indicated that construction will take place in late June into August and the road will
remain open during construction with access provided to driveways at most times. He
advised that staff has been working with the property owners on Park Center Boulevard,
as part of the Park Summit Redevelopment project, to consolidate the two driveways into
one intersection on Park Center Boulevard. He stated that this will be brought forward in
the future once the final design is in place, which will result in a postponement of the mill
and overlay on this portion of the road.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there will be any additional cost due to the delay in
completing the mill and overlay on this portion of the road.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 25, 2011
Mr. Olson stated that there will be no additional cost and agreements with the property
owners will require that they pick up the cost for constructing new driveway entrances
and other changes needed for the new intersection configuration.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 11-050 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement
Project No. 2010-1100 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Projects No. 2010-1100.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Resolution Approving 2011 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)
Local #993 Labor Agreement
Resolution No. 11-051
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and introduced Fire Lieutenant Eva Schlegel. She
stated that the Labor Agreement with Local #993 represents a one year contract, with a
wage increase of 0% for 2011, consistent with other settled groups, an increase in the
employer contribution for health insurance that is consistent with other groups, a lump
sum payment of $130, and an increase in clothing allowance of $130. She advised that a
new license requirement for firefighters was recently enacted and the City will pay this
licensing fee. She indicated that the City also added the registered domestic partner
language to the contract as well as clarification of the injury on duty language.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-051 Approving the Labor Agreement Between the City of St. Louis
Park and International Association of Firefighters, Local #993 – January 1, 2011-
December 31, 2011.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the spaghetti dinner at Lenox on Friday, April 29th,
from 4:30-7:30 p.m. He stated that tickets are $7.50 in advance and $8.00 at the door.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the home remodeling fair will be held on Sunday, May 1st, from
12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the freight rail listening sessions scheduled for
Wednesday and Thursday, April 27th and 28th, at 6:30 p.m. at the Junior High School. He
indicated that the City’s website has further information regarding the listening sessions,
as well as a link to provide comments regarding the freight rail issue.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/LISTENING SESSION #1
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 27, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Organizational Development
Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Office Assistant (Ms.
Luedke), Notetaker (Ms. Stegora-Peterson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Mr. Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.)
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentation – Freight Railroad Update
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to everyone for attending. He stated that the
meeting is intended to be a listening session for residents as well as a chance to talk to and listen
to one another and for the Council to listen.
Mr. Harmening provided brief historical information regarding the Kenilworth corridor and
SWLRT, stating that the Kenilworth corridor has been chosen as the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA), or preferred route, to connect downtown Minneapolis all the way to Eden
Prairie. He indicated that that decision has raised a number of questions about where freight rail
would be located and until that question is answered and a solution determined, the SWLRT
project cannot proceed. He advised that two specific freight rail routing options are being
considered, one option would continue to use the Kenilworth corridor by co-locating in that
corridor and the second option involves re-routing that same freight rail traffic that passes
through St. Louis Park and the Kenilworth corridor onto the existing MNS line. He discussed the
two City Council policy statements contained in the form of resolutions which makes clear that
the City Council supports the implementation of the SWLRT project, but also makes clear that
the City Council continues to oppose the re-routing of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth
corridor to the MNS line unless a number of conditions are met relating to the lack of another
viable route being available and that a number of mitigation measures were implemented. He
noted that the County and Mn/DOT have undertaken a series of studies on freight rail, examining
the feasibility of using the MNS line for freight rail which includes the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which will be released shortly. He then
introduced Mr. Dave McKenzie, the City’s engineering consultant.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
Mr. McKenzie presented a detailed overview of his Technical Memorandum #4 (Memo #4),
noting that the report is still in draft form pending release of the EAW. He stated that Memo #4
provides a comparison of the Kenilworth and MNS corridors and the impacts to St. Louis Park as
well as potential mitigation measures. He reviewed the TC&W freight rail map, stating that
TC&W is primarily a local carrier that ships grain, corn, soybeans, sugar and some coal. He
presented a map of the Kenilworth corridor compared to the MNS corridor as well as the
proposed MNS/BNSF re-route, noting that more detailed maps are available upon request. He
indicated that TC&W has raised a concern regarding the existing grades on the MNS route. He
then reviewed how the Kenilworth corridor would look, with the proposal to shift freight traffic
over to the west from its current location with light rail going down the middle of this route. He
discussed the potential impacts to the Cedar Lake Shores townhome development and the
potential taking of 33 units. He presented a comparison table outlining existing conditions,
conditions if Kenilworth is chosen, and conditions if MNS is chosen, and reviewed train
operations, track, road crossings, residential impacts, and institutional and business impacts. He
noted that the correct total amount for the MNS corridor should be $76,672,000. He discussed at
grade road crossings and explained the exposure calculations contained in the report. He then
presented information regarding SWLRT and freight rail and key factors to be considered,
including relocation of the regional trail and “4f” parkland issues. He provided an overview of
potential mitigation measures and stated that there are three components to mitigation, including
what is required under the law, negotiated mitigation between the affected parties, and mitigation
efforts referred to as “betterments.” He encouraged residents to contact him and/or City staff
with questions.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the City will continue to work closely with County, State, and Federal
officials and will insist that the City and its residents be taken seriously. He indicated that this
listening session is a chance for residents to voice their questions and concerns, and for the City
Council to listen. He explained that following the listening sessions, City staff will combine all
of the comments and questions and post responses on the City’s website; in addition, the City
Council will hold a Study Session on May 9th to debrief on the listening sessions.
Ms. Gothberg explained the process for resident comments and reminded residents that the City
Council will be listening only this evening and no formal Council action will be taken at the
listening sessions. She stated that two people are taking minutes and the listening session is being
videotaped for rebroadcast.
3. Audience Comments
Ms. Jamie LaPray, 3256 Blackstone, co-chair of Safety in the Park, noted that two of her
neighbors have yielded their allotted time to her (Mr. Ray Auer, 3200 block of Blackstone, and
Mr. Tip Lausen, 3200 block of Blackstone). She stated that Mr. McKenzie’s report was thorough
and it quantifies everything very well. She felt the report was missing some of the nuances that
make the two lines very different, for example, one of the things Mr. McKenzie mentions is that
both lines have curves, but the MNS curves are tighter. She stated that the tightest curve on the
Kenilworth corridor is actually east of Cedar Lake Road with no structures around it and it is in
the middle of park land. She stated that the curves on MNS are near schools, homes, and
buildings and some of these curves are closer than the length of a rail car. She stated that
derailments are more likely on a curve than a straight track. She indicated that another interesting
item the report alluded to are the number of trains on each track and their speed. She stated that
whichever route is chosen, the tracks will be upgraded to a higher standard and that standard will
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
bring trains to 10-25 mph and trains do better if they are traveling on a straight track, at low
grade and with little turns. She stated that going through Kenilworth and crossing at Beltline and
Wooddale where there are a lot of cars, there are straight tracks and trains can go 25 mph, but
that same 100-car fully loaded train will need to go up a grade, through a series of curves before
heading down a curve to the BN track. She stated that when she asked Bob Suko of TC&W how
fast a fully loaded train would go up that interconnect, he said less than 25 mph, and when she
asked that same question of Tom Johnson, he estimated the train could go 8-10 mph. She stated
that those crossings are a mile apart at Wooddale and Beltline and will not be blocking both
crossings at the same time. She stated that trains will be blocking Walker Street, Lake Street, and
Dakota Avenue for upwards of ten minutes which will make it impossible to get around that
section of the City when a train is going through at 8 mph. She stated that a lot of nuances were
left out of the report and agreed to write them down and send them in. She stated the report needs
to look at the differences between the two tracks more closely. She stated that the resolution
adopted by the City Council in 2001 recommended removal of the wye, and Mr. McKenzie said
the wye will not be removed and a second wye will be created in the northern section of St.
Louis Park which will become a switching wye. She stated that any train can go north to Golden
Valley, and the train will come back in the other direction, so instead of seven trains going north
through the neighborhoods, it could be more depending on how many trains are going south to
Savage which will happen in the future. She stated the City needs to keep in mind that there will
be a lot more trains. She stated in the 2010 resolution, the City Council says that it wants the
County to do a careful analysis to find that no other viable route exists. She stated that after the
November 2010 meeting where the County gave a report showing another possible route, she
found mistakes and learned that they did not look at all possibilities. She stated in that report in
November, they were told that freight rail and light rail had to be 25’ apart and were led to
believe that the 25’ was because of Federal regulations; however, in a Freedom of Information
Act data search conducted on Mn/DOT, she found that it was not a Federal regulation but it is a
Mn/DOT choice for distance between freight rail and light rail, therefore other possibilities were
not looked at in terms of safety walls or safety barriers between freight rail and light rail. She
stated that they left out information that we should have had and should have been able to figure
out whether or not something else could be done. She stated that the County is ignoring the City
Council’s resolutions and did not feel that the County is taking them seriously. She stated that
the PMT process is a mess and does not address anything. She urged the City to hold on to that
piece of land that the City owns that is required for the interconnect and make the County respect
the resolutions until the County lives up to what the City Council and we as residents want, to
not give up that land, and to do whatever is necessary to keep the County from taking it and
bulldozing this plan through before the City and residents have what it needs to have a livable,
wonderful city to live in.
Mr. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Avenue, stated that this listening session is refreshing
compared to the County’s sessions. He stated his feeling that the County and Mn/DOT have been
deliberately deceiving the residents of St. Louis Park and deceiving the City Council by asking
us for our input, making us believe that the input was valuable, and that decisions had not been
made before the study process. He stated that most important is the deceit that light rail is the
cause for this improvement to the MNS line and SWLRT is merely a convenient trigger to
upgrade the MNS line, to get Federal funding so it becomes a more important freight rail line for
Minnesota and becoming, in the long run, a commuter line for Minnesota. He stated that the
reason they believe this is that all those things are written out in the 2010 Minnesota State Rail
Plan where it clearly states that the MNS line or Dan Patch line will become at some point in the
future a far more important freight rail line with far more frequent trains and could be used as a
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
commuter rail line in the future. He stated that this plan has been in place for many years and
some of the legislators that represent Bloomington introduced legislation to take Dan Patch off
the table, but that legislation is being repealed now and a vote taken soon and tagged on to
another bill to be re-studied as a commuter line. He stated that the dollars for this rail plan,
outlined earlier, should have been in the LRT Federal funding and if LRT is really the cause,
then those dollars should have been in the LRT plan. He stated the upgrade to MNS is not part
of the Federal LRT funding package. He stated that Ms. LaPray mentioned the PMT study
process, which was intended to get opinions from the neighborhoods affected by the switch and
those monthly meetings have been a sham. He stated that residents have voiced all their
mitigation measures and none of the measures asked for has been included. He stated that the
most concrete evidence of this flip-flop is the bridge over Minnetonka Boulevard, noting that in
November the track was moved 8’ to the east of that line, clearly indicating that Mn/DOT had a
plan to move that rail line so it could be a more important rail line. He stated that the challenge is
for the City Council to challenge the County and stand up for the citizens of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Curt Rahman, 4209 Browndale Avenue, stated that he owns several businesses in St. Louis
Park and is the PMT representative for the West Lake Street businesses. He presented two pages
to the City Council of vibration criteria and community vibration criteria from the MN&S Study.
He stated the charts are from Kimley Horn and he used their numbers. He stated that he is a big
fan of light rail and all he hears from the County and Mn/DOT is they are making an equal
evaluation of the options for freight rail, but his observation as part of the PMT process is that
they are minimizing the cost of this project. He stated that if that is the right answer, so be it, but
it will not be done without proper mitigation of freight rail issues. He spoke about the real and
tangible impacts, stating that those who live and work near the trains experience severe vibration
that already exceeds Federal guidelines. He referenced the “infrequent events” column on the
criteria, noting that for businesses the level is 83 and for residents it is 80. He stated the Kimley
Horn vibration study shows today they have to be 50’ from the track to experience those levels
of vibration, but he had a study done at one of his buildings which showed vibration ten points
higher at 50’ from the tracks than the measurements taken by Kimley Horn. He stated the studies
of Kimley Horn are highly suspect and the City needs to take another look at that. He stated that
business owners told him it feels like an earthquake when trains come through and he has had to
stop a phone conversation because of the vibration. He stated that vibrations are measured in
VdBs and Kimley Horn did studies at two places with two trains, which said it should be able to
handle 83 VdBs at that location. He stated that according to Kimley Horn, the proposed re-route
will see increases of 5-8 VdBs of both additional frequency and severity. He stated that this
needs further evaluation because you cannot increase vibrations on a line when it already
exceeds Federal guidelines.
Ms. Denise Zurn, 2608 Webster Avenue South, stated that she has concerns about the process
that the County is working with. She stated that she does engineering studies for a living and felt
that the Kimley Horn study is not an engineering study. She stated Kimley Horn made clear they
were not documenting options and were leaving things out to suit themselves. She stated Kimley
Horn did not include any option with respect to grade separation as an option because it
represented too big of an impact. She stated that is not the nature of an engineering study which
should do its best to provide equivalent solutions, but Kimley Horn has no intention of doing that
and represents a really bad process for the County to be paying for. She stated that the issues she
has with the design include the high school and her opinion that the high school needs a
complete grade separation as a safety issue. She wondered if there was no adequate way to
quantify the safety issue at the school and whether that was the reason why it has not been
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
highlighted. She stated she did not think that long term, the residents will find exposure of
students to increased freight rail acceptable. She stated this is not in the initial cost structure for
freight rail and will come back to the citizens after huge, unacceptable safety issues arise. She
stated that another issue she has with the design is the 29th Street closing, noting the limited
street grid for Birchwood and the impact of that closure on traffic east of the railroad on
Minnetonka Boulevard, which is extremely dangerous to turn off or on to. She requested the
addition of lights on Minnetonka Boulevard to mitigate the loss of that key element of the street
grid from Birchwood. She questioned how the City will protect property values in the
neighborhood if the area ends up with the minimum right-of-way and whether homes will be
taken along the railroad tracks.
Mr. Joe Neal, 6915 West 23rd Street, asked the City Council what the ultimate benefit to the
taxpayer of St. Louis Park will be with this whole program. He stated he has not heard anything
from anyone about the benefit to the taxpayer.
Ms. Kathryn Kottke, 2712 Brunswick Avenue South, stated that she did not understand this issue
until 2010 and since them became informed of the issue and is part of the PMT process. She
stated she has never been part of a group more dysfunctional than this group. She stated she has
learned five things in the past year, including the County, in an effort to secure funds for LRT,
lied on its Federal application by neglecting to state a rail line exists. She stated that Gail
Dorfman told St. Louis Park residents last April that the re-route was a done deal, but through
the PMT process, Katie Walker told the PMT that no decisions had been made. She questioned
which statement was true. She stated that Gail Dorfman also told St. Louis Park residents that if
mitigation could be secured for the re-route, these requests would be considered in the planning,
but not one request from the Bronx neighborhood has been reflected and in fact, the re-route
pushes additional, faster and more dangerous trains in the area and around schools. She asked
whether the County is offering true mitigation. She stated that the County hired R.L. Banks to
determine the viability of co-locating and the consultant told the City that had the County
allowed them to shift the predetermined line, the two lines could co-locate. She asked how this is
a real study if the County is creating arbitrary parameters. She stated the greatest lesson she
learned is that the County has lied to Federal authorities and St. Louis Park residents, and this lie
runs so deep she does not even know who is responsible for re-routing the trains in the first
place. She stated she wants honest, fair dealing, and the City Council must say no to this route
because it is unsafe, unwise, unaffordable, and dishonest, and will reap serious consequences.
She asked that the Council at least consider a pragmatic reason for telling the County it will not
accept the re-route. She referred to the Council resolution saying the Council will protect its
residents. She asked that home values be reassessed and asked how the City Council is going to
explain to its constituents that property taxes will increase significantly because it failed to
protect residents from the re-route. She stated that she voted for the City Council to represent the
residents and trusts the Council to make decisions that have a positive impact on the City and its
residents. She asked that the City Council tell the County that it will not stand for their dirty
politics.
Mr. Mark Christiansen, 3011 Brunswick Avenue South, expressed his thanks to the City Council
for holding this forum. He stated he has three issues against the re-route, including property
values, standard of living, and safety. He stated he will have to sell his home and the person who
buys it will have to sell it at a lower price and before long, the neighborhood will be an
undesirable location and St. Louis Park will be a drive-through neighborhood if this happens. He
stated that noise and vibration affect quality of life and there are health issues. He stated this is
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
not a corridor but is wedged between and close to homes. He stated that safety issues include too
much traffic next to the high school and this will change the dynamic around the high school and
it is not safe. He stated that derailments happen and it will happen here, and there needs to be a
plan in place because of the proximity to homes making it dangerous to people. He requested
that the City Council make continued efforts for property and fair mitigation because residents
are not being listened to at the PMT and there are no proper safety and mitigation plans in place.
He also asked that the City demand to be at the table for the decision-making process because St.
Louis Park is not currently in the decision-making which boggles his mind and he failed to
understand how that happened. He stated that there has to be a better way and urged the City not
to let St. Louis Park become a second class community.
Mr. Al Boyce, 3208 Edgewood Avenue South, stated that he sent an email to the City Council
earlier today and recited his email to the City Council for inclusion in the record.
Ms. Cheryl Martin, 5728 West 26th Street, stated that she has not been active in this until
December and has attended several meetings, and she has lost her hope in government. She
stated what she has seen is exactly as portrayed earlier where government officials ask for input
and then ignore that input, and it feels as though this railroad is being railroaded down our
throats. She stated she lives three blocks from the tracks in the Birchwood neighborhood, and it
appears that a small railroad will apparently become a big railroad if the City ends up with a
freight rail line. She stated that she does not want to see this train re-routed and would like to see
it in the Kenilworth corridor with light rail. She questioned the total dollar value placed on the
project, and expressed concern about property values. She stated that she took a survey of how
many properties were sold on the rail line since last year, and learned there were seven, two of
which involved a traditional sale, two of which were short sales, two of which were foreclosures,
and one was an auction that sold at $71,000. She stated that homes along the tracks are taking a
long time to sell and are seeing a 5-7% property value reduction. She stated that she is also
concerned about safety and did not believe that children can be taught to stay away from the
tracks. She stated that the City is going to have issues around the high school that scare her.
Mr. Kevin Terry, 3200 Hampshire Avenue South, stated that he works at Target Center and it
does not matter if you are in the basement or on the terrace level, you can feel when a train goes
by. He stated that he has lived in St. Louis Park for a long time and the City is a Children First
community, and the City needs to fight for its children now. He stated that he is counting on the
City Council and asked that the City Council fight for its residents.
Ms. Keisha Piehl, 6325 33rd Street West, expressed thanks for the opportunity to speak. She
stated that she has three high energy kids that keep her and her husband moving and what they
love about St. Louis Park is their ability to be on the go and not be in the car. She stated that
other communities cannot walk their city like residents can in St. Louis Park, either on foot or on
bicycle, skateboard or rollerblades. She stated that her family walks to the store, to schools, to
the community center, to the dentist, to McDonald’s, and to six or seven different parks. She
stated that many of these walks involve crossing the MNS tracks and she is concerned that a
dramatic increase in train traffic would affect this walkability that makes St. Louis Park so
family friendly. She stated that these tracks do not skirt around the edge but cut through the
center right through neighborhoods and cut through a vibrant, active part of the neighborhood,
with family friendly amenities on both sides. She stated that her family wants light rail in St.
Louis Park and acknowledge that there are not many good options for the freight rail traffic, but
this seems an especially bad one. She stated that Park Pride runs deep in her family and her
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
family loves this city and the parks and recreation, and she appreciates how well the City is run.
She asked the Council to stand firmly on the freight rail re-route.
Mr. Ron DaBruzzi, 2651 Yosemite Avenue, stated he has been to a number of meetings and was
particularly interested in the presentation as far as mitigation on the two options. He expressed
concern regarding the setback requirements and the number of units mitigated for the Kenilworth
route. He stated that if a derailment occurred, there are a dozen houses on each of those blocks
and felt there was no way that a car coming off those tracks would not end up in someone’s yard.
He questioned how it was not possible to at least acquire all the houses surrounding the track and
expressed concern that this request has been made but appears to have been blown off.
Mr. Joseph LaPray, 3256 Blackstone, stated that the County and Mn/DOT have chosen a route
that is the least efficient and presents the greatest hazards to public safety. He stated for railroad
operating efficiency, the best route is a direct, short route that has few railroad crossings and few
curves; the MNS route is the longest, has the sharpest curves and most crossings, yet this is
preferred by Mn/DOT and the County. He imagined that a railroad engineer going around those
curves between Dakota and Library Lane and by the time it makes contact, it is too late to stop
his train in an emergency, it is a blind curve and there is nothing the engineer can do to stop. He
stated that there are no comparable line crossings and this was brought up to Kimley Horn and
they said the crossings meet Federal standards. He reiterated there are no comparable crossings
yet the MNS route is preferred by Mn/DOT and the County. He referenced the Professional
Journal of Real Estate Appraisal which looks at areas when freight rail is re-routed and the
property values most depressed by a freight rail re-route are smaller homes that are at or below
the level of the tracks and those homes that are not defended by berms or other breaks, and those
homes describe homes in St. Louis Park. He stated that meaningful mitigation measures have
been dismissed as betterments and the MNS route does not make sense from an operational,
public safety, and property value perspective. He stated the residents are not contemptible or
expendable.
Mr. Greg Suchanek, 2740 Blackstone, presented a short videotape taken on Monday in his
backyard when a train went by and asked the Council to consider how close these trains really
are. He stated if a train were to derail, it would take out his garage and possibly his house. He
expressed concern regarding increased speed of the trains to 15-20 mph and stated the trains
would then be a lot noisier. He stated he has been doing some remodeling and found that he has
had to adjust doors because they do not line up square, and increased train traffic and speed will
cause more problems, more settling, and more noise, as well as decrease their home values. He
stated that their home values have already been affected and are going down, and at some point
he will want to sell and if he is not able to sell at a fair price, he will probably rent the house. He
stated he felt the City Council had several options, including letting the County force this re-
route through, which is wrong because the County has not come up with any mitigation and the
PMT study is a joke. He stated that residents have asked for a number of mitigation measures
and nothing has been done. He indicated that his assumption going into the PMT process was
that they would look at all these, come up with costs, and present it to the County to make a
decision on what items are viable; instead, they decided what was viable and threw out anything
expensive. He stated another option is to keep fighting for trains in the Kenilworth corridor. He
disagreed with Mr. McKenzie that the option of having a single track for light rail through that
pinch point with stations at either end which can control traffic in that area through a single
track. He stated a third option is to build a true corridor in St. Louis Park, buying up homes on
either side of the track, and moving the tracks to the east as they get north of the McDonald’s and
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 8
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
moving it away from the high school, which would provide safer curves and a true corridor that
is functional and better for the community.
Mr. Doug Guild, 7100 West 23rd Street, deferred his comments to a written comment card and
did not wish to speak.
Mr. Brian Zachek, 6108 Minnetonka Boulevard, stated that this train re-route has been ruining
their lives for the last year. He expressed concern about this going through and their home not
being bought out. He stated that he has been to all the PMT meetings and all of their mitigation
requests have been ignored; in addition, Dave Christianson from Mn/DOT gave a flowery speech
talking about the rights of the train companies to make a profit. He stated it is the County driving
a wedge between the train companies and the people of St. Louis Park. He stated that this is a
serious issue and would like to know why it only seems to be the citizens of St. Louis Park and
Safety in the Park that are talking about the repercussions of a derailment and why this has not
been mentioned by Kimley Horn. He indicated he was surprised at that and this is a massive
problem for the City and it is going to happen. He stated he was here to ask the City Council to
please protect the physical and economic safety of his family by preventing this or holding the
County accountable to purchase homes that need to be purchased. He added that the City Council
represents his hope to save not only his family but several others along the line.
Ms. Judy Johnson, Director of Government Affairs for TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, 10700
Old County Road 15, #700, Plymouth, expressed thanks for the opportunity to voice the
Chamber’s thoughts on the SWLRT. She also expressed great respect to the citizens in
attendance at this listening session. She stated that TwinWest is part of the transportation alliance
in support of the SWLRT and offered some insights as it relates to TwinWest’s support for
SWLRT. She stated that there are no easy solutions and referenced studies that show co-locating
SWLRT and freight rail is not as robust for future economic development. She stated that
TwinWest Chamber is aware of St. Louis Park’s strong support of light rail, and it will be up to
the City and the other partners to weigh and measure the impacts to people as well as to SWLRT
as well as what it would mean to the NTSB since this project ranks high for Federal funding and
is in fact one of the highest ranked projects in the region. She added that the TwinWest Chamber
continues to serve as a resource to the City as light rail moves forward.
Mr. Doug Bruce, 9850 Edgewood Road, Bloomington, stated that the issue the City is dealing
with is a regional issue and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He stated
that there is a group involved with the Dan Patch Alliance which has chapters in Bloomington
and other locations, and the Dan Patch line runs through those communities. He stated he has
been in contact with State representatives, State senators, and the County Commissioners and he
comes to the City with experience on commuter rail issues, noting that it is obvious that freight
rail, light rail, and commuter are all tightly inter-wound. He advised that he was appointed from
Bloomington to take part in an interagency study studying commuter rail in the Dan Patch line,
which included looking at data that consultants brought forward and came to the conclusion that
it was not appropriate to consider moving forward with commuter rail. He indicated that one
reason was that in order for the Dan Patch line to handle commuter rail, the whole line would
have to be completely rebuilt at a huge cost to taxpayer; in addition, there was a question raised
about the property values along the line. He stated the studies they came up with showed a 12-
15% decrease in property values and that decrease goes back into the community, with an impact
in Bloomington of about $2 million a year. He stated that they are concerned about the
investment in the crossover of starting that process of upgrading this whole system resulting in
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 9
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
more rail, more freight rail, and priming the pump for commuter rail. He stated that his concern
would be that he hoped the City did not do something where it shoots itself in the foot by making
commuter rail sound attractive.
Mr. Dave Wanger, 7807 Edgebrook Drive, applauded the City for all of its work and stated that
the railroad property is in his backyard. He indicated that he has been fighting this for 20 years
starting in the early 1990’s when TC&W began as a company. He stated the TC&W started as
an entirely diff freight rail company and has grown more every year. He noted the vibration,
noise and pollution is nothing compared to when they block cars and he would like to see the
blocking of cars in St. Louis Park eliminated entirely. He stated that the noise when they park
trains in the back yard with the train engine running for hours has caused him to feel dizzy and
sick and close to setting off the carbon monoxide detector. He stated that TC&W has been a bad
neighbor and it is going to get worse. He asked that the City Council consider that this company
is going to cause more problems in the City until the situation is addressed.
Mr. Richard Earle, 2628 Florida Avenue South, was not present at the listening session when his
name was called.
Mr. Jack Haskovitz, 8143 Westwood, stated that he owns a business at 2625 Louisiana Avenue
South and as a business owner along the railroad tracks, he has experienced trains going by
quickly and questioned what happened to the speed limits. He stated that the SWLRT corridor
appears to be putting a bulldozer through the neighborhoods, without consideration given to the
infrastructure needed to support it. He asked about all the litigation and people that will fight the
City every bit of the way. He referred to the I-394 project and all the litigation involved with
that project, noting that it still got built but at a significant cost. He expressed concern about the
parking lot for light rail and asked why the City is not looking at existing infrastructure
buildings. He expressed concern about scams and mismanagement and stated that common sense
needs to take precedence here.
Mr. Lynne Carper, 4010 Highwood Road, stated that he represents the Lake Forest neighborhood
on the PMT. He stated that he feels that St. Louis Park is being forced to eat this railroad and is
being told that the Kenilworth corridor is not feasible, that it costs too much, and cannot be done.
He challenged that assumption. He stated that Mr. McKenzie discussed how much distance
would be needed in order to operate and mentioned having a 25’ clearance. He stated that it has
been mentioned that the Federal government decides that, which is not true, or that the State
decides that, which is not true, but the individual railroad determines this distance. He advised
there is a publication that contains the entire railroad operating rules, including all railroads in
Minnesota, and this book costs $1,100. He spoke with a State official at one of the PMT
meetings who informed him he has this book, so he submitted a question to the State official
asking him to tell him what this book says about TC&W; his question has not yet been answered.
He stated that he also submitted this question to Mr. Harmening and has not heard anything. He
stated that at this point, he does not believe the number and has seen no substantiation for the
number. He discussed the Federal government modeling of passenger trains at a 15’ clearance
between other trains which tells him that the northeast corridor will be operating at much tighter
standards. He stated that he also believes that if there were no freight rail in the corridor and
only a walking path and trail and light rail, that the walking path and trail would be gone in order
for light rail to go through and can be relocated at a low cost to accommodate both freight rail
and light rail in that area. He requested more discussion regarding distance and clearances if
BNSF is going to put in a new main line to the north of the existing line which becomes a spur
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 10
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 27, 2011
and puts trains closer to existing homes in the Cedar Isles neighborhood. He expressed concern
about the dangers of freight rail going by the high school with 30,000 gallons of ethanol.
Mr. Jeremy Anderson, 3208 Dakota Avenue, stated that he represents the Lenox neighborhood
on the PMT and felt that the single overriding issue here is safety. He expressed significant
concern about routing kilotons of freight rail past the high school and all it takes is one bad
railroad accident or derailment and the death toll would be horrific. He stated that moving within
80’ of a high school is bad engineering.
Mr. Brian Bevel, 2837 Yosemite Avenue, stated that during the 1990’s he lived in downtown
San Diego near the existing freight rail lines and believes that San Diego represents a model for
the nation in a light rail system. He stated the orange line engineering was constructed near his
residence and alongside existing freight rail and commuter and passenger rail tracks already in
place. He stated that San Diego was able to put this line in a much more congested area without
putting a train anywhere near a high school or someone’s home. He stated that the City and other
agencies have bright and capable officials who should come up with a better solution without
bisecting existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Gary Aiken, 1811 Traymore Road, Minnetonka, stated that he is with the TwinWest
Chamber and past Board member, and agreed with Ms. Judy Johnson’s comments. He added that
he felt the rail situation in St. Louis Park is very important to the economic development of the
southwest metro area. He stated that he grew up in St. Louis Park near the trains on 29th and
Blackstone and felt that rail safety has greatly improved over the years.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to everyone and stated the second listening
session will start at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow evening.
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/LISTENING SESSION #2
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 28, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, and Sue
Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Office Assistant (Ms.
Luedke), Notetaker (Ms. Stegora-Peterson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Mr. Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.)
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentation – Freight Railroad Update
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to everyone for attending. He stated that the
first session last night went really well and commented that it is great to see so many residents
attend to talk about this important issue. He noted that this meeting is intended to be a listening
session for residents as well as a chance to talk to and listen to one another and for the Council to
listen.
Mr. Harmening provided brief historical information regarding the Kenilworth corridor and
SWLRT, stating that the Kenilworth corridor has been chosen as the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA), or preferred route, to connect downtown Minneapolis all the way to Eden
Prairie. He indicated that that decision has raised a number of questions about where freight rail
would be located and until that question is answered and a solution determined, the SWLRT
project cannot proceed. He advised that two specific freight rail routing options are being
considered, one option would continue to use the Kenilworth corridor by co-locating in that
corridor and the second option involves rerouting that same freight rail traffic that passes through
St. Louis Park and the Kenilworth corridor onto the existing MNS line. He discussed the two
City Council policy statements contained in the form of resolutions which makes clear that the
City Council supports the implementation of the SWLRT project, but also makes clear that the
City Council continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor
to the MNS route unless a number of conditions are met relating to the lack of another viable
route being available and that a number of mitigation measures were implemented. He noted that
the County and Mn/DOT have undertaken a series of studies on freight rail, examining the
feasibility of using the MNS line for freight rail which includes the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which will be released shortly. He then
introduced Mr. Dave McKenzie, the City’s engineering consultant.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
Mr. McKenzie presented a detailed overview of his Technical Memorandum #4 (Memo #4),
noting that the report is still in draft form pending release of the EAW. He stated that Memo #4
provides a comparison of the Kenilworth and MNS corridors and the impacts to St. Louis Park as
well as potential mitigation measures. He reviewed the TC&W freight rail map, stating that
TC&W is primarily a local carrier that ships grain, corn, soybeans, sugar and some coal. He
presented a map of the Kenilworth corridor compared to the MNS corridor as well as the
proposed MNS/BNSF reroute, noting that more detailed maps are available upon request. He
indicated that TC&W has raised a concern regarding the existing grades on the MNS route. He
then reviewed how the Kenilworth corridor would look, with the proposal to shift freight traffic
over to the west from its current location with light rail going down the middle of this route. He
discussed the potential impacts to the Cedar Lake Shores townhome development and the
potential taking of 33 units. He presented a comparison table outlining existing conditions,
conditions if Kenilworth is chosen, and conditions if MNS is chosen, and reviewed train
operations, track, road crossings, residential impacts, and institutional and business impacts. He
discussed at grade road crossings and explained the exposure calculations contained in the report.
He then presented information regarding SWLRT and freight rail and key factors to be
considered, including relocation of the regional trail and “4f” parkland issues. He provided an
overview of potential mitigation measures and stated that there are three components to
mitigation, including what is required under the law, negotiated mitigation between the affected
parties, and mitigation efforts referred to as “betterments.” He encouraged residents to contact
him and/or City staff with questions.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the City will continue to work closely with County, State, and Federal
officials and will insist that the City and its residents be taken seriously. He indicated that this
listening session is a chance for residents to voice their questions and concerns, and for the City
Council to listen. He explained that following the listening sessions, City staff will combine all
of the comments and questions and post responses on the City’s website; in addition, the City
Council will hold a Study Session on May 9th to debrief on the listening sessions.
Ms. Gothberg explained the process for resident comments and reminded residents that the City
Council will be listening only this evening and no formal Council action will be taken at the
listening sessions. She stated that two people are taking minutes and the listening session is being
videotaped for rebroadcast. She stated that Councilmember Julia Ross was unavailable for
tonight’s listening session due to her required attendance at a neighborhood meeting and
Councilmember Phil Finkelstein is currently in a trial in southern Minnesota and hopes to arrive
later this evening.
3. Audience Comments
Mr. Mike Hough, 3225 Blackstone Avenue, expressed his appreciation to the City for the nice
job in keeping residents abreast on what is going on with this difficult decision. He wished to
state for the record that the MNS is grossly under-designed for safety and in his mind; a grade
separation is the real answer to taking care of these issues, particularly at the high school. He
stated that a friend of his that attended last night’s session left with the impression that the
Kenilworth corridor would not work because the design concepts are so difficult for the stations.
He indicated that he did some checking and even if MNS is chosen, there will be light rail
stations at Penn, Blake, Hopkins and Highway 62, all of which will have the light rail station
with a bike path and freight included all side by side, and he could guarantee that they will figure
out how to make it work, so they should make it work on the Kenilworth corridor.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
Ms. Jami LaPray, 3256 Blackstone Avenue, stated that after last night’s session, she kept
thinking about the comments from the Chamber of Commerce representatives, and she felt she
needed to comment further. She stated for the record that she is in favor of SWLRT and the
speakers from the Chamber of Commerce implied that if St. Louis Park does not accept freight
on the MNS, it will be our fault if the light rail fails. She stated that if light rail fails, it will not
be the fault of residents of St. Louis Park who are standing up for themselves, residents will not
be pushed around, it is not the City Council’s fault for living up to the resolutions it passed,
which the County ignored. She added it will not fail because the City was unwilling to accept
more costs than any other community. She stated that if freight rail causes light rail to fail, that
failure falls squarely on the shoulders of the County because they lacked the vision to look at
light rail and freight rail when planning light rail, the County has been dismissive,
condescending, and sometimes, people believe, they have been dishonest. She stated she is
incensed that residents would be blamed for something that is absolutely, positively not their
fault.
Ms. Claudia Johnston, 3931 Joppa Avenue, stated that her neighborhood is not impacted by this
issue, but there are a lot of residents in the neighborhood who have children going to schools,
visiting the library, visiting small business owners in the area who are all going to be impacted
by the traffic and what will happen to residents and businesses directly affected by this. She
stated that she is a Planning Commissioner and requested to serve on the PMT and so far, the
PMT is one of the strangest groups she has been involved with. She stated that the PMT process
is not working for a lot of reasons. She stated her biggest concern is whether or not each and
every one of the members of the City Council is going to support the resolutions that were
signed; that resolution says that the City “opposes the rerouting of freight rail from the
Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met” and goes
on to state “[unless] it is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other
viable route exists… 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...elimination of
railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations. Removal of the existing ‘wye’ rail tracks…
Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right of way…” She stated that
none of these conditions are being met with the PMT group and they have ignored the majority
of the recommendations made by residents. She stated that she does not intend to be disrespectful
to all who have worked on the PMT committee, but felt that the EAW is a joke and the result is
not going to be what it could have been. She stated that residents need to know where the City
Council stands, whether the City Council supports the resolutions, and whether the City Council
will let the phone calls from the County or Mn/DOT intimidate them if the Council does not
allow this to happen in St. Louis Park.
Ms. Liz Diericks, 2635 Alabama Avenue, stated that she moved here because she saw the area as
a clean, nice place with access to trails and is concerned that all that is going to go away if this
happens. She stated that the Iron Triangle has not been previously discussed and felt her
neighborhood, which is between the rail line and Highway 100 north of Minnetonka Boulevard,
has been under-represented in the meetings. She indicated that in talking with the Historical
Society and others in the area, she learned that rail was taken out because it had a high
propensity for derailment and it is now being proposed to put it back in with a sharp curve, with
high speed trains carrying hazardous chemicals, to close the at grade crossings at 28 and 29th,
and to close the highway access at 27th Street. She questioned what is going to happen with
emergency vehicle access as well as citizen evacuation when those derailments happen. She
stated this is putting residents in an unsafe environment, and added there are 1,000 homes in this
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
five by seven block neighborhood, and she has not heard this talked about. She referred to the
environmental impact study and the maps identified wetlands with 100% overlap with FEMA
floodplain lands, and asked why only 1.75 acres of that land is being planned to be protected by
the Wetland Conservation Act and Army Corps of Engineers permitting process. She stated that
she has not seen a side-by-side comparison anywhere and while she appreciated the City
Council’s efforts to bring the issue to this level, she questioned who was listening to residents
and who the decision-makers are. She also asked “what is the criteria” and “who is looking at
that side-by-side list?”
Mr. Chris Gaspard, 6210 Hamilton Street, stated that the new bridge on Wooddale has improved
traffic, however, he still has difficulty getting out on his street because of the traffic backing up
at the stop sign. He questioned how much more difficult that will be when trains are added. He
stated there will be major traffic impacts on the infrastructure and the City is not prepared for
this. He stated that he felt it was crazy to make the trains climb, do a crazy turn, and whip
around, which sounds like the trains will roll over onto the high school parking lot. He stated he
did not think this was a good idea, and as the City’s elected officials, residents have to put their
faith in the Council and residents want to know where each of the Councilmembers stands on
this matter. He stated that if the train goes through, the City Council is to blame and this will put
a lot of people’s lives, property, and life savings in jeopardy. He expressed concern about
property tax values going down significantly and this will diminish the quality of the City. He
stated that the City will no longer include nice starter homes with new families, and conditions
will worsen with noise and a bad infrastructure. He also expressed concern about the planes
flying directly over the City, and if you drop a grid over the City, there will be planes, trains, and
automobiles, and it is not okay to dump this on our laps. He hoped that the City Council will take
the time to assess its priorities and not let the County push it around.
Mr. Fritz Vandoyer, 5915 West 42nd Street, stated that he lives 90’ from the tracks south of
Excelsior Boulevard. He stated that the problem with transit in the United States is that it
benefits people at either end and does not often benefit people along the way. He stated this must
work for St. Louis Park and it can be a positive benefit. He stated that whatever the City Council
does, whatever the City Council recommends and whatever the City Council fights for, it must
benefit the City. He stated that residents are not talking about the negatives of light rail, they are
talking about the negatives of freight rail.
Mr. David Teigland, 2635 Alabama Avenue, was not present at the listening session when his
name was called.
Mr. Dale Hanson, 2555 Xenwood Avenue South, stated that one thing not being addressed is the
pinch-point in the Kenilworth corridor referred to in Mr. McKenzie’s presentation. He stated it
shows everything at grade and there is a nice bridge over Highway 7 for bikers and joggers. He
asked why the same couldn’t be in the Kenilworth corridor, adding that this would increase the
space a lot before the rail and would be a lot less expensive than the mitigations mentioned.
Ms. Janet Ungs, 2554 Alabama Avenue, stated that she lives in the Iron Triangle and this is the
first time she has heard it mentioned, yet there is a lot of concern about this for those living there.
She stated that she has lived in the area for 27 years and the railroad activity has been minimal.
She expressed concern about impacts to property values, safety, noise, and vibrations, adding
that during the day, she can hear a faint hum from the trains, but at night with two trains going
slow she can hear the vibrations of pictures on her walls. She stated if additional and faster trains
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
are added, she worries not only about the pictures on her walls but also what it will do to the
structure of buildings. She indicated that if the bypass goes through in the Iron Triangle, it will
affect the townhome garages and homes. She stated she has served for a number of years on the
townhome’s board of directors and found the railroad is not a good neighbor, noting that there
are a lot of trees on railroad property that border the townhome property and several trees have
fallen over onto garages, but the railroad has not taken care of removal of the trees after they
were contacted, resulting in the townhome association spending money to remove the trees and
repair the garages. She added that the City contacted them about elm disease and the townhome
association informed the City that the diseased trees are owned by the railroad and they had tried
for a number of years to get the railroad to take care of the trees. She stated the overall cost
would be less to keep the trains in the Kenilworth corridor and asked the City Council to
consider having light rail in that corridor to minimize the impact to other areas of the City. She
stated she has not heard any benefit to St. Louis Park and wondered why the City Council was
having this discussion in light of the resolutions it passed. She indicated that at meetings in
January and February, several people asked if the decision was already made and no one could
provide a direct answer; in addition, people asked who the decision-makers are and nobody
could tell them. She stated that she hoped the City Council was here to listen and asked if the
City Council’s resolutions have clout or whether it was window dressing.
Ms. Karen Hroma, 2753 Blackstone Avenue, stated that at the beginning of this meeting, the
Mayor stated the City Council insists that St. Louis Park be taken seriously and that he is proud
that these listening sessions have been civil and effective. She indicated as a member of the
PMT, St. Louis Park has not been taken seriously and those meetings have been anything but
effective and respectful. She asked the City Council what it is going to do to make sure the City
is taken seriously and stated that she wants to know what the City can do and what it is going to
do. She stated the County studies are flawed and the best word to describe the PMT meetings is
that they have been insulting and a waste of time. She referred to an issue with the PMT process
related to the 29th Street closure and stated that as a Birchwood representative, she along with
other residents requested that 29th Street not close, which was submitted as a written request to
Kimley Horn. She indicated that when the study came out, the 29th Street closure was listed as
mitigation and questioned how that can be considered mitigation. She asked if that was
mitigation for the railroad. She concurred with Ms. LaPray’s remarks regarding support for
SWLRT and stated that the County made the mistake of separating light rail and freight rail from
the beginning. She stated it was insulting to hear at PMT meetings that St. Louis Park
unanimously voted for that route, while neglecting to say that the City had concerns about that
route. She stated that she is confused that the County has been able to keep the reroute separate
from light rail when it requested Federal funding and questioned why St. Louis Park is portrayed
as the bad guys for getting in the way of light rail. She asked where the money is coming from
for this project, adding that the plans have been changed because there is not enough money to
fund the project, as has been seen with the Highway 100 project. She expressed concern about
quiet zones and stated that most of the time a city pays for quiet zones and typically Mn/DOT
does not contribute to quiet zones. She also expressed concern that insufficient funding will
mean that minimal mitigation will go away as well.
Mr. Dan Goldman, 5353 Gamble Drive, stated that he owns the apartments at 8800 West 36th
Street, and is attending representing the business community as Chairman of the St. Louis Park
Business Council, which is a committee of the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that he feels
bad that some residents feel the Chamber is pointing a finger at them for wanting safety and
peace of mind because that is not where the Chamber is coming from; however, the Chamber
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
does see light rail as a tremendous asset for all of St. Louis Park, including the residents of his
apartment building who will be able to walk to the light rail station to get to work. He stated it is
important that we come up with something that makes light rail a success, keeping in mind the
safety of residents.
Ms. Dorothy Doyle, 3041 Maryland Avenue, expressed her fervent support for improving transit
in the region. She recognized the challenge of dealing with all the competing interests and
credited the City for working hard and credited the County for working to make light rail a
reality in the community.
Ms. Louise Kurzeka, 3301 Library Lane, stated that she has been working hard to educate people
in her neighborhood about this process and expressed her appreciation to City staff for their help.
She stated it will be important to work to find a win-win situation and right now, there is a lose
happening. She discussed property values and research done in the summer of 2004 which
appeared in the Appraisal Journal that shows increased freight rail impacts home values with an
expected 5-7% drop in home values for those homes within 750’ of tracks. She stated as train
trips go up, that number goes up as well, and the more trips in a day, the more negative impact
there is. She stated it is significant to know that that research was applied to home values and
sizes of homes very similar to St. Louis Park. She stated that she did a simple count of parcels
and came up with 800 parcels affected within 750’ of tracks, taking that number and using a
Minneapolis 2011 median sale of $172,000, equates to an $8,600 drop in values, or
approximately $6.88 million that people will lose on their property values, which will also
translate into less property tax value for the City. She stated the research also shows that when
light rail goes in, there is an increase in property values, noting that areas like Philadelphia and
Portland experienced increases of 3.8–10.6% in terms of actual mean value. She stated it is clear
that if you can offset the loss of having freight rail introduced by having the bonus of light rail,
by keeping freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth corridor, you will still see an increase in
value overall, but it is not fair to ask 800 parcels to take the hit for everybody else to get the plus
on the other side. She stated that San Diego is a fabulous model for light rail and heavy rail that
co-exist with a lot of pedestrian traffic. She stated that Springfield, Illinois, is facing the same
kind of issue as St. Louis Park and in a review of their Planning Commission notes, it was stated
that when selecting among alternatives, those alternatives should consider the fewest negative
effects for the largest number of people. She asked that the City Council take that to heart and
support its residents and not have the reroute on the MNS.
Ms. Kathryn Kottke, 2712 Brunswick Avenue, thanked the City Council for providing her
another opportunity to speak. She referenced two articles that quoted Mayor Jacobs as saying St.
Louis Park does not have much to say in this issue. She stated that she understands that the City
Council can tell the County that it does not accept this reroute because it does not accept their
mitigation and it does not accept their mitigation because it is not safe for the community or
appropriate given the circumstances. She referred to the Chamber of Commerce comments last
night and a reference to the money that can be made with light rail, and did not believe that light
rail would be scrapped because the MNS route will not work without significant mitigation. She
stated that the City can have light rail, if and when the County decides to do it right. She urged
the City Council not to let this turn into another wi-fi debacle and to recognize the long-term
costs of rerouting freight rail will be impossible to recover from should the City Council regret
its decision. She also referred to a speaker last night that claimed he survived living near the
trains 40 years ago, but noted that those trains were shorter and slower. She stated that this plan
will approve longer, faster trains and she does not want to think about living in an environment
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 7
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
by simply surviving. She urged the City Council to do the right thing for its residents and
constituents and not accept this plan until the County is willing to do it honestly and safely.
Ms. Michele Maurer, 2748 Brunswick Avenue, stated that she wanted to publicly thank
Councilmembers Omodt, Mavity, and Sanger for responding to her email, in which she equated
this issue to the 35W project because that project cut the city in half, created blight, and created
crime in a transitional neighborhood. She stated that she is worried about that same thing
happening along the City’s corridor, about properties turning into rental properties, about
decreases in value, as well as the effect of transitional or rental housing on kids coming in and
out of the City’s schools and how that brings down the entire pull or magnet of St. Louis Park
and its schools. She agreed with the earlier statement regarding the challenges faced by residents
with the noise of airplanes and trains, which will get worse and lead to a greater likelihood of
lower values in housing and rental property and the crime that comes with it, which will reduce
the tax base at a time when the City will need more police and fire. She expressed concern about
the dangers of kids walking along the tracks. She stated that she loves light rail, but does not like
freight rail.
Mr. Omar Zaidi, 4129 Xenwood Avenue South, stated that he has lived in the same house for 13
years and enjoys the sense of togetherness and knowing his neighbors. He stated that he likes the
concept of having light rail, but asked that the City Council be smart about how it gets through
the process. He stated that it appears residents are concerned that they are not getting the right
information or are having difficulty locating accurate information. He stated that it took him
three weeks of digging through the website and calling for information and found it was difficult
to find information. He asked the City Council to look at all the people who came to these
listening sessions and to let them become the City Council’s advocates in whatever decision is
made and to think about the whole community and to hear the residents. He stated that someone
has to stand up to the County and Federal officials because this is a City issue that the City
decides. He stated he is very concerned that the reasons we live here may get taken away if the
reroute happens.
Ms. Renée Beltrand, 2805 Zarthan, agreed with what has been said and was sorry that the whole
community has to solve this for the County. She stated that light rail is important and she
supports mass transit. She stated she was upset that Mr. McKenzie was laughing about the
prospect of building a new high school and that that was a mitigation cost that was laughable.
She stated that it is daunting to wrap your mind around all of this. She indicated that one of the
reasons she moved to St. Louis Park was because it is a good community for children, and she
wondered how to maintain that if parents have to be fearful of sending their kids to walk to the
park or to school when the railroad can carry any type of freight, even anhydrous ammonia. She
questioned why 57 townhome units were more important than 1,200 students in school every day
and felt it was not an apples to apples comparison. She questioned what will happen to the
quality of the City’s education and how to attract teachers. She expressed concern about blight in
the neighborhoods and the 25’ corridor, adding that she did not think anybody would call that
safe if a freight train is moving at 20-30 mph. She added that she attended the 2011 Caring
Youth ceremony which drove home three important points to children: don’t use hazardous
substances, don’t speed, and wear a seatbelt. She stated that residents do not want hazardous
substances in their neighborhoods, they do not want speeding trains in their neighborhoods, and
they need safety in the Park.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 8
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
Mr. Joe LaPray, 3256 Blackstone Avenue, stated that he is looking forward to light rail and
hopes that it happens. He asked the City Council what happens if the light rail is not funded. He
also asked what happens to freight rail if the funding for light rail is postponed. He stated that his
understanding is that the rail in the Kenilworth corridor needs to be replaced and that the MNS
trackage is not up to standards for the kind of usage TCW puts on it. He asked who would pay
for rebuilding the trackage if the light rail does not happen.
Mr. Tom Pearson, 2706 Yosemite, stated that he lives in the Iron Triangle area and is two and
one-half blocks from the rail and half a block below it. He stated he is against the rerouting of
freight rail through St. Louis Park which has no relationship to his feelings about light rail,
because he is a big supporter of light rail. He indicated that rerouting of freight rail will have a
negative impact on the quality of life, not just the noise, but also safety and will have a negative
impact on property values. He stated that none of the so-called mitigation measures will change
that in the Iron Triangle area and keeping freight rail traffic in the Kenilworth corridor will not
have those negative impacts on quality of life or property values because it is already there and is
designed for it. He added that rerouting freight rail through St. Louis Park is not the only solution
for light rail and felt that St. Louis Park should just say no to that solution.
Mr. Bill James, 3224 Florida Avenue, stated that he has been involved for a long time in rail
projects in St. Louis Park and serves as the City’s representative on the County Corridor
Management Committee for SWLRT. He expressed support for the SWLRT project currently
underway. He stated that there are two common denominators related to this issue: mitigation
and the responsibility of the County and Mn/DOT as it relates to the issues at large. He explained
that at a top line level, the project is $80-90 million depending on where freight rail resides and
in the context of the light rail project, that cost is $1.25 billion or about 6-8.5% of that figure. He
stated that the mitigation assessment and budgeting within the light rail program has a variance
of 10-15%, and those mitigation issues are all bucketed within the draft EAW which is underway
for light rail. He referred to the DEIS, a federally mandated document that is required for putting
in light rail, and encouraged the City Council and all citizens to take advantage of the comment
period on the DEIS and to bring forth any issues on the rail project across the entire line or in the
City. He stated that the 45-day comment period is open and accessible on the internet with links
posted on the City’s website. He noted that once a comment has been entered, it has to be
addressed and comments regarding mitigation, both required and subjective, can be entered for
review and comment, which will be entered into the Federal Register. He stated that this
document is important for capturing all comments by citizens and encouraged the City to take
great advantage of submitting everything into the DEIS because it will be documented and
logged on the docket for addressing by members of the FTA as well as the County.
Mr. Rolf Peterson, 3536 Zinran Avenue South, presented a large piece of limestone to the
Council and stated that this sedimentary rock is heavy and will last forever, a lot like the railroad.
He stated that this process, the PMT process, and the mitigation issues have caused him to lose
all faith in the program. He stated that the City Council has met with the School Board and is
aware of the School Board’s efforts to see grade separated interchanges, to see pedestrian access
over or under at Dakota Avenue, and to see curves straightened out. He stated he would prefer to
see this in Kenilworth but if not, it needs to be done right. He expressed concern about losing the
wye at Skunk Hollow and potential increased freight rail traffic in Savage. He stated that railroad
companies are a common carrier and cannot say no to a shipment, even anhydrous ammonia. He
expressed his appreciation to the City Council for its good working relationship with the School
Board.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 9
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
Ms. Kandi Arries, 3051 Brunswick Avenue, stated she is the PMT representative from the Lenox
neighborhood, and commented on her experience on the PMT by stating that it is her belief that
the community involvement on the PMT was not sincere and not authentic. She stated that she
took the City Council resolutions seriously, asked her neighbors for their concerns, thoughts, and
solutions, brought it to the PMT, and in the end, were told at the last meeting that the expert
opinion of the consultant will design the best outcome of this process and the best mitigation,
and the mitigation lists presented by the neighborhood were rejected as not legally binding,
instead deemed as betterments or a nice thing to do for the community. She stated that her
interpretation of this is that these are not betterments or nice things, but are actually things that
have been asked for and are things that are principles even within Federal government
guidelines. She stated that in doing some research, she came across an interagency partnership of
the EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Transportation,
which established guidelines for rules of livability principles for future projects. She stated that
two in particular could be applied to the impacts in this situation with freight rail, including
enhanced economic competitiveness, and is described as improving economic competitiveness
through reliable access, basic needs by workers, and expanded business access. She felt that a lot
of this speaks to how the small businesses on Lake Street will be affected. She also felt that the
accessibility of the high school and quality of education seems to be a principle that is valid in
this situation as well. She stated that perhaps the most relevant value relates to the community
and neighborhood livability principle of enhancing the unique characters of all communities
investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods, which is the most overlooked principle
when considering the net result of the MNS study. She noted that the Federal government
established these mission statements to protect residents and added that they are not asking for
betterments, rather, they are asking for a healthy, safe neighborhood.
Ms. Lee Ann Landstrom, 2701 Yosemite, stated that she is most concerned for the safety of her
fellow citizens. She agreed with the earlier comments from the Birchwood neighborhood and
the potential for derailment in that area. She stated that after hearing Mr. McKenzie’s
presentation, it is obvious that the MNS is more curvy, has more crossings, is more steep,
impacts more houses and schools, is more costly, and does not include mitigation, so it seems
obvious to keep freight in the Kenilworth corridor and take out the townhomes so the light rail
and freight rail can co-exist. She added that the City Council must insist that the reroute not
happen through St. Louis Park.
Ms. Betty Shaw, 2649 Huntington, agreed with Mr. Peterson’s comments and as a former School
Board member, can remember standing in the school buildings listening to trains and feeling the
vibrations, knowing that teaching cannot occur when that happens. She stated when you start
adding up the minutes lost by our children every day when a mile long train goes by, and the cost
of educating our children, you have to consider the amount of cost to the taxpayer in unusable
time in the classroom. She urged the City Council to hold the County’s feet to the fire about the
true cost of mitigation and to be firm with the people making decisions. She added that this
cannot go through with the way the high school is now.
Ms. Mary Hunt, 7021 West 23rd Street, stated that she previously sent an email to the City
Council. She stated that there are so many aspects to this entire rail issue and it is hard to get a
handle on it. She indicated that she has been sending emails to the PR person for over a month
because her statistics were not complete and she requested further information. She stated that
there is no livability in her home anymore because of the trains going 24/7 and she can feel her
house shaking and it wakes her up at night. She explained that when she bought her house in
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 10
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
2006, she called Mn/DOT to find out how many trains went by and was told there were two
trains a day and now there are 14 or more. She added that they improved the line a couple of
years ago and apparently the track is considered a Class 4 track which means the trains can travel
up to 60 mph. She expressed concern with light rail and high speed rail co-existing on the same
tracks and the high speed rail maximum speed is 110 mph. She also expressed concern about
mitigation, property values, and quality education. She agreed with the earlier comment that
BNSF has not been a good neighbor.
Mr. Tom Cremone, 3035 Brunswick Avenue, stated that there may be a perception on the part of
people and at various levels of government that we are malcontents. He stated that this is an issue
that will have a significant impact on the quality of life and desirability of houses and
neighborhoods in the City. He stated that the City has leverage with the County and the City has
an opportunity to have an impact on this. He asked that the City Council remember that it
represents the residents, not the County, not Mn/DOT, not the Met Council, and to do its best to
get the best possible deal for the neighborhoods and the whole City.
Mr. Brian Granquist, 3115 Colorado Avenue, stated that he has only lived in the City for two
years and they love the neighborhood. He stated it is clear that the County is not listening and
there appears to be lack of leadership on this whole process. He referred to several assumptions
made in the 1990’s related to light rail on Hiawatha and acceptable mitigation. He stated that the
County also made assumptions on decibel levels and traffic around the high school. He stated
that right now, there are hundreds of officers in downtown Minneapolis making sure that Twins
fans do not cross the light rail tracks, and he asked if St. Louis Park will do the same to make
sure kids are not crossing the tracks. He asked the City Council to think about safety and to make
sure it is clear on what the City wants and to make the County listen. He added that he felt the
City Council has 48,000 people behind it.
Ms. Linda Hatfield, 4181 Zarthan, expressed thanks to the City Council for hosting the listening
sessions and putting in the time for these sessions. She stated when she bought her house 17
years ago, there were only two trains a day and today there are still only two trains. She stated
she has never worried about her son’s safety and the tracks. She stated she would like to know
how each of these options is going to affect what is happening with the Dan Patch line, which
goes by her house. She stated she would like to know how each of these options affects the
planning and whether it will make it easier to get the Dan Patch through, which will mean 60
mph trains fourteen times a day. She stated that she cannot live there with that and would not be
able to sell her home. She mentioned the fight forty years ago when they wanted to put the
airport in Ham Lake and stated that her father was instrumental in fighting that. She indicated
that the final decision came down to one report and a very small group of people who dug in
their heels and said you have to listen to us. She added that the report said the airport would be
put in the middle of a peat bog and will cost more than you think and we will make you listen.
She stated that just a few people made them wake up and hear that, and it takes strength, guts,
and determination to stand fast and do what is right. She stated that it is her hope that these are
the qualities that this Council brings to the fight, it sounds like the County is not listening, and it
is up to the Council to do what is right.
Ms. Sharon Duncan 3249 Florida Avenue, expressed concern about the safety of children in
schools and quoted from a book by Dr. David Walsh, author of “Why Do They Act That Way?”
and “NO.” She recited a portion of text referring to teenager’s prefrontal cortex behind the
forehead and a teenager’s inability to think and act rationally. She expressed concern about
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 11
Subject: City Council Listening Session Minutes of April 28, 2011
teenagers and trains, which is not a good mix, and felt there would be injuries or worse if trains
go by the high school, even if safety measures are added because kids are still kids. She stated
that she did not think it was fair to overall education to have to stop and wait for trains to go by.
She added that she loves St. Louis Park and loves Children First, and hoped that the City Council
will continue to keep children safe.
Mr. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Avenue, stated that years ago when the original statutes were
written making possible the interconnect on the south side of the City onto MNS, an easement
was set aside and given to St. Louis Park; that property is needed for the interconnect to be built.
He stated that the City can say no to giving up the easement rights to that property. He
acknowledged that that might be politically difficult, but it can be done. He stated he wants
residents to understand that this is leverage the City has and the whole easement was set up to
work in favor of the City and the best interests of the City with a private entity like the railroad
or a public entity like the County or Mn/DOT. He asked that the City Council use that leverage
for those easement rights.
Mr. Jim Mattison, 3017 Jersey Avenue, stated that he is supportive of light rail. He rhetorically
asked whether this would still be an issue if the rail went past the high school and the Iron
Triangle was not there.
Ms. Helene Herbst, 2717 Alabama Avenue, stated that she has lived in the City since 1996 and
was inspired to speak tonight. She stated she was working on her Master’s Degree in
Organization Leadership and one of her assignments was to write a paper about leadership in
action. She explained that she heard about Vision St. Louis Park in the 1990’s and collected
videos and information about the Vision project and was very impressed with the meetings and
the specific areas that were focused on, like housing and education. She stated that the reroute is
more than just a train coming through and will impact the vision for the City and what it is going
to be. She encouraged the City Council to keep in mind the ripple effects of the upcoming
decisions as it relates to all those things the City has worked for years to build. She added that
she has been impressed with the City’s leadership and encouraged the City to have courage to do
what it needs to do.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s appreciation to everyone for attending.
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 2, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Public
Works Director (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. 2011 National Public Works Week Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the National Public Works Week Proclamation and expressed the
City Council’s thanks to the Public Works staff for their dedicated efforts, particularly
after this year’s difficult winter.
Mr. Rardin thanked the City Council for recognizing the Public Works staff. He stated
that there will be a Community Open House on Wednesday, May 18th, at the Municipal
Service Center. He stated there will also be a ribbon cutting on Monday, May 16th, to
recognize the completion of the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue project. He added
there will be a backyard composting workshop on Saturday, May 21st, at Wolfe Park.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes April 11, 2011
Councilmember Mavity requested that the third sentence of the ninth paragraph on page 3
be revised to state “She explained that Safety in the Park has sent out a communication
stating that this is your chance to come and get your questions answered, therefore, the
City needs to clarify that no responses are being provided during this listening session
and responses will be posted on the City’s website.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of May 2, 2011
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Designate Lindstrom Environmental as the next lowest responsible bidder,
and authorize execution of a contract, for the Asbestos and Hazardous
Materials Abatement at Fire Station No. 1 and Fire Station No. 2 (Project
Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002) in the amount of $54,748.
• Designate Albers Mechanical as the next lowest responsible bidder, and
authorize execution of a contract, for Work Scope 23 – Mechanical for Fire
Station No. 2 (Project No. 2008-3002) in the amount of $619,000.
• Designate Albers Mechanical as the next lowest responsible bidder, and
authorize execution of a contract, for Work Scope 23 – Mechanical for Fire
Station No. 1 (Project No. 2008-3001) in the amount of $1,021,000.
• Authorize staff to execute a contract with the third lowest bidder for Work
Scope 23 – Mechanical for Fire Station No. 1 only in the event that the
second lowest bidder does not execute the contract for this work.
4b. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Mill Valley Kitchen
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that Mill Valley Kitchen has made
application for an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license to be located at 3906
Excelsior Boulevard in the Ellipse on Excelsior building. She indicated that the premises
will occupy 4,830 square feet with seating for 164 inside and outdoor seating for 24. She
added the restaurant plans to begin operations in the next few weeks and will offer a
health conscious menu including breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the hours of operation.
Mr. Craig Bentdahl, owner of Mill Valley Kitchen, appeared before the City Council and
stated that the restaurant will be open at 7:00 a.m. for breakfast and close most evenings
at 10:00 p.m. He added that the restaurant will be open until 11:00 p.m. on weekends.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of May 2, 2011
Ms. Stroth stated that the restaurant can be open until 2:00 a.m. but State law requires a
separate license for the 2:00 a.m. close time, which the applicant has not requested.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
application from Mill Valley Corporation, dba Mill Valley Kitchen, for an on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor license to be located at 3906 Excelsior Boulevard with
the license term through March 1, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
6b. Public Hearing – First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that Rottlund Company is asking
for vacation of a utility easement at 3601 Wooddale Avenue and 5810 37th Street West,
which is the site of the Wooddale Pointe Planned Unit Development. He indicated the
current easement was retained by the City when it vacated an alley in 1989 and there are
no utilities in the easement. He noted that the City received confirmation from the utility
companies that there will not be a need for the easement in the future. He added that
buildings are not permitted on easements and HUD is requiring removal of the easement.
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 Finkelstein, to
adopt First Reading of an Ordinance, An Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement, and to
set the Second Reading for May 16, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Project Report: W. 44th Street Reconstruction (France Avenue to Brookside
Avenue) – MSA Street Improvement Project – Project No. 2005-0500
Resolutions No. 11-052 and No. 11-053
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and stated that the majority of the reconstruction is
located in the City of Edina, with only a tenth of a mile contained in the City. He
indicated that the City of Edina has held the necessary public hearings, done the
engineering design work, and all administration will be led by the City of Edina, as
spelled out in the Joint Powers Agreement. He advised that the project includes removal
and replacement of the existing asphalt, installation of concrete curb and gutter,
replacement of driveway aprons as needed, removal and replacement of deteriorated
sections of the existing sidewalk, and installation of new storm sewer and catch basins to
address existing drainage issues. He stated that a significant part of the design has
included efforts to preserve trees in the neighborhood and to mitigate impacts as much as
possible. He indicated that because the roadway is designated a Municipal State Aid
Street, the roadway must meet State Aid standards which requires minimum street
widths. He advised that staff from both cities applied for and obtained a variance to
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of May 2, 2011
reduce the road width to 30 feet in some segments of the roadway, including that portion
within the City. He stated that this will require restricted parking on one side of the street,
adding that throughout the public process, residents agreed to the parking restrictions. He
discussed the Joint Powers Agreement which addresses project delivery, costs, facility
ownership, routine maintenance and general maintenance responsibilities, noting that
Edina will be responsible for snow removal on the street and sidewalks. He stated that the
cost of the entire project is $2.75 million with the City’s share estimated at $412,000. He
added that construction is scheduled to begin in June and completed in October 2011 and
the roadway will be open to local traffic during construction.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City will be responsible for any ongoing
maintenance costs.
Mr. Brink replied that the City will not be responsible for any additional maintenance
costs. He added that the City will be responsible for sidewalk maintenance on its property
but the City of Edina will be responsible for snow removal.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern that the intersection of W. 44th Street and
Wooddale has a lot of fast moving traffic and there have been ongoing issues with cars
not stopping completely. She asked how the proposed pavement markings will improve
safety for pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Mr. Brink stated that the pavement markings contain reflective epoxy imprinted into the
pavement rather than laid on top and will not wear off as fast. He added that these
pavement markings have been used by the City of Edina along 50th Street and the
markings have held up well.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-052, Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2005-0500 Approving Plans and Specifications, Authorizing Advertisement for Bid,
and Authorizing Entering into an Agreement with the City of Edina for W. 44th Street
Reconstruction, Project No. 2005-0500.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-053, A Resolution for Parking Restrictions of West 44th Street from
Brookside Terrace to France Avenue (CSAH 17) for the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
8b. Final Plat – Eldridge 1st Addition, 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard
Resolution No. 11-054
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and complimented the City Planner, City
Engineer, and Fire Marshal who worked to resolve the road width issues, as well as the
developer who worked with the neighbors to achieve a larger buffer by providing them
with additional property to the east of the proposed street.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes of May 2, 2011
Mr. Fulton stated that the proposal includes a single lot subdivided into five lots and the
addition of a new street on the east side, to be called “Cobblecrest Court.” He advised
that the developer has agreed to dedicate five feet of land to improve screening and
increase the size of the backyards of the property owners at 3010 and 3020 Cavell
Avenue South which will be deeded at no cost to those property owners and the fence
will be maintained by those property owners. He discussed the cul-de-sac modifications
and stated that an agreement was reached to reduce the width of the street to 24 feet with
parking allowed on one side only. He stated that the storm water management plan has
water flowing to the south over much of the site into a pond on the southwest corner
before flowing into Minnehaha Creek via Cobblecrest Lake, which complies with the
City’s surface water management plan. He indicated that the proposal calls for removal of
18 significant trees, requiring the developer to replace 130 caliper inches. He noted that
the developer will also remove the invasive buckthorn on the site. He then introduced Mr.
Rob Eldridge, developer.
Mr. Bill Streeter, 3010 Cavell Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and asked
if the proposed fence will be six feet high. He also asked about the existing utility pole on
his property.
Mr. Eldridge replied that the fence will be six feet high. He stated that Mr. Streeter
should contact Xcel Energy about the utility pole and agreed to provide him with contact
information for Xcel Energy.
Mr. Fulton stated that there is an existing drainage and utility easement on Mr. Streeter’s
property and that easement will remain in existence. He added that it is the responsibility
of the property owner to work with Xcel Energy regarding the replacement and/or
relocation of the utility pole.
Mr. Streeter asked who will handle the legal description change on his property.
Mr. Fulton replied that the developer would be responsible for filing for a lot
combination with the County, in cooperation with the homeowners.
Councilmember Santa stated that there may have been damage to the existing trees
following the ice storm this winter and asked if those trees were accounted for when
calculating tree replacement. She added that the neighbors had previously expressed
concern about the wellbeing of the trees on their property during construction and asked
about the developer’s plans to protect those trees.
Mr. Fulton stated that the developer met with the City’s Environmental Coordinator to
review the trees on site and the tree calculation was adjusted to account for any damage.
He explained that the developer has submitted a plan for tree protection during
construction and the developer will work to keep construction away from the
neighborhood trees, especially along the western edge. He added that it will be important
to look at all trees during construction in order to have a clear understanding of what is
deemed significant and what is deemed invasive. He assured that the City will take extra
steps to make sure there is a protection zone for the adjacent trees.
Councilmember Santa requested information regarding construction timelines.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes of May 2, 2011
Mr. Eldridge stated that he will be closing on the property in mid-June and it is
anticipated that building permits will be pulled and infrastructure work started in June.
He advised that three of the five lots have been sold and house construction will begin in
July. He added that he hopes to sell the remaining lots in the next couple of weeks.
Councilmember Sanger questioned how two lanes of traffic and parking will be
accommodated on the narrower street.
Mr. Fulton stated that the 24’ wide street will require parking restrictions on one side. He
advised that the Fire Marshal determined that the 24’ width is acceptable for a fire truck
to maneuver down the street; in addition, the Fire Marshal has required the addition of
sprinklering of homes in this development as an additional safety measure.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about the ability of snowplow trucks to
maneuver in this narrower roadway.
Ms. McMonigal stated that street parking would happen on a very infrequent basis.
Parking will be limited to the east side of the street and the City does not believe that the
narrower width will cause issues for the snowplow operators.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-054 Giving Approval for Final Plat of Eldridge 1st Addition.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to staff for doing a great job with the
two listening sessions held last week.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to staff for putting together the ground
breaking at Fire Station #1 this evening. He also thanked the Webelos Scouts for helping
dig dirt at the ground breaking ceremony.
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Community Open House on Wednesday, May
18th, at the Municipal Service Center from 6:00-8:00 p.m. He reminded residents of the
Children First Ice Cream Social on Sunday, May 15th, from 2:00-5:00 p.m. at Wolfe Park.
He also reminded residents of the Park and Run 5k Fun Run on Saturday, May 14th, at
Wolfe Park.
Mayor Jacobs stated that Parktacular will be held June 17-19th this year; further
information will be forthcoming.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Vacating a Utility Easement at 3601 Wooddale Avenue and
5810 37th Street West.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to waive second reading and adopt the ordinance vacating a utility easement at 3601
Wooddale Avenue and at 5810 37th Street West contained in the agenda materials, and approve
the summary ordinance also contained in the agenda materials for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Have the City’s policies for vacation of the utility easement been met?
BACKGROUND:
The Rottlund Company (current property owner) and Wooddale Catered Living, LLC (applicant,
and future owner) is asking for the vacation of a utility easement lying easterly of Wooddale
Avenue between, and parallel to, 36th Street and 37th Street.
The land on which the easement is located is part of the Wooddale Pointe Planned Unit
Development (PUD) approved in November of 2009. The easement was retained by the city
when it vacated an alley in 1989. The easement is not currently being used by the city or any
utility company. It has also been determined by the Public Works Department and the applicable
utility companies that there will not be a need for it in the future.
The approved PUD includes new easements on the site that will meet the cities and the utility
companies needs. It also provides for construction of a 5-story building which is proposed to be
over a portion of the easement. Buildings, however, are not permitted on easements, so the
applicant is asking for the vacation of the easement so the proposed project can proceed.
First Reading by City Council:
The Council adopted the first reading of the proposed ordinance on May 2, 2011.
Recommendation:
Since the easement is not currently being used, and there is not a future need for it, staff is
recommending that it be vacated.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Vacating the easement will allow the Wooddale Pointe Planned Unit Development to proceed
which will add to the city’s tax base.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Vacating Utility Easement at 3601 Wooddale Ave & 5810 37th St W
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary for Publication
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 May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Vacating Utility Easement at 3601 Wooddale Ave & 5810 37th St W
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT
Portion of the alley lying easterly of Wooddale Avenue between 36th and 37th Streets for a
distance of approximately 250 feet
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 utility easement proposed to be vacated has been duly
filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on April 21,
2011, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined
that the utility easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the
public that said utility easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described utility easement as now dedicated and laid out
within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
The public easement reserved within City of St Louis Park Ordinance number 177889, adopted
February 21, 1989, and filed February 24, 1989 as Document Number 5510164 lying northerly
of Lots 1-4 inclusive, and all of vacated alley and adjoining ½ of Yosemite Avenue vacated,
Block 1 COLLINS 2ND ADDITION ST. LOUIS PARK, and lying southerly of Lots 6-11, Block
44, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, and generally lying east of Wooddale Avenue
and west of Yosemite Avenue, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Section 3. 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.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading May 2, 2011
Second Reading May 16, 2011
Date of Publication May 26, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect June 10, 2011
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Vacating Utility Easement at 3601 Wooddale Ave & 5810 37th St W
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.___-11
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT
Portion of the alley lying easterly of Wooddale Avenue between 36th and 37th Streets
for a distance of approximately 250 feet
This ordinance states that the utility easement described above is vacated.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2011
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 26, 2011
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
The Towers at West End Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Time Extensions.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve an extension until May 31, 2012 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and
final planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City allow Duke Realty additional time to file applications for final plat and final
PUD approval for The Towers at West End?
BACKGROUND:
Under the zoning code, Duke Realty is required to submit an application for final plat and final
PUD within 90 days of City Council preliminary plat and preliminary PUD approvals. The 90-
day deadline originally was set to expire on May 31, 2009. On April 20, 2009, and May 3, 2010,
the City Council approved one year extensions to the deadline. The City has received a written
request from Duke Realty for another extension.
As indicated in the attached letter from Duke Realty, market conditions have made it very
difficult to proceed with an office project at this time. Staff would concur with this
determination and feels the extension request has merit.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Duke Realty Request for Extension
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
May 9, 2011
Mr. Sean Walther
Senior Planner
City of St Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: The Towers at West End – Preliminary PUD Extension Request
St. Louis Park, MN
Dear Sean:
This letter is to request a 1 year extension (May 31, 2012) to file final plat and final PUD
applications for our Towers at West End Development. Market conditions have continued to be
very challenging in the past year and our local office is unable to start speculative office
development at this time.
We have continued interest in build-to-suit prospects and will keep you updated as to when a
project might begin.
If you have any additional questions please contact me at 952/543-2926.
Sincerely,
Duke Realty
Patrick E. Mascia
Senior Vice President-Minneapolis/Saint Paul Operations
pat.mascia@dukerealty.com
PM:jh
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: The Towers at West End Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Time Extensions Page 2
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
Parktacular Block Party – Dispensing of Intoxicating Liquor by Park Tavern.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve resolution authorizing Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to provide alcohol
during the hours of 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. at the Parktacular Block Party to be held on June 18,
2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to allow Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to serve alcohol at Parktacular
Street Dance on June 18, 2011?
This action is consistent with previous approvals provided by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Parktacular 2011 Community Celebration will be held June 16 through June 19. The
Parktacular Block Party will be held on the Excelsior & Grand Town Green on Saturday, June 18
with gates opening at 5:30 p.m. and closing at 11 p.m. The outdoor concert entertainment will be
provided by Boogie Wonderland who will perform from 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Free parking will
be available in the Excelsior & Grand ramps and at The Rec Center.
Park Tavern has once again donated the funds to Parktacular to sponsor the Block Party for the
fifth year which includes entertainment, food, and beverages. Along with food and soda, they
will be selling adult beverages to anyone 21 years of age and older in an area to be fenced off as
shown in the attached map. The hours in which alcohol will be available is from 5:30 p.m. to11
p.m. Park Tavern will be providing staff to check ID’s and wrist bands to ensure no alcohol will
be sold to minors. Police officers will also be on duty at the event. Gate fee tickets and
Parktacular buttons will be sold at the two entrances and many volunteers will be monitoring
crowd control along with a “dump bucket” at each entrance/exit. After the 11 p.m. closing time
of the Street Dance, the area will be cleaned.
It should be noted that in checking with the St. Louis Park Police Department there have been no
incidences reported stemming from the previous block parties.
As stated by MN Statute 340A.404 Subd. 4. (b) regarding community festivals, the governing
body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license
issued by the municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at a community festival
held within the municipality. The authorization shall specify the area in which the intoxicating
liquor must be dispensed and consumed, and shall not be issued unless the licensee demonstrates
that it has liability insurance as prescribed by section 340A.409 to cover the event.
Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Parktacular Block Party – Dispensing of Intoxicating Liquor by Park Tavern
Park Tavern currently holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and upon approval by City
Council to serve alcohol at the Parktacular Street Dance, the required insurance certificate will
be submitted to the Clerk’s office.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The annual Parktacular Street Community Event supports the strategic direction of being a
connected and engaged community by increasing use of existing gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Parktacular Block Party – Dispensing of Intoxicating Liquor by Park Tavern
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUTHORIZATION OF
PARK TAVERN LOUNGE & LANES, 3401 LOUISIANA AVE. S.
TO DISPENSE INTOXICATING LIQUOR OFF PREMISES AT THE
PARKTACULAR STREET DANCE HELD ON JUNE 18, 2011
AT THE EXCELSIOR & GRAND TOWNE GREEN
IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3, provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety: and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 340A.404 Subd. 4. (b) regarding community festivals,
states the governing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale
intoxicating liquor license issued by the municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises
at a community festival held within the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 Parktacular event is an annual celebration with many sponsors and
volunteers promoting a spirit of pride, a sense of community and an atmosphere of celebration
for all residents of the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Avenue South currently
holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and will be sponsoring the Parktacular Street Dance
featuring entertainment, food, beverages, and staff to assure no alcohol will be sold to minors by
checking identification and the use of wrist bands.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park City Council
authorizes Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Avenue to dispense intoxicating liquor
off premises at the Parktacular Block Party to be held June 18, 2011 from the hours of 5:30 p.m.
to 11 p.m. at the Excelsior & Grand Towne Green.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council on May 16, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Parktacular Block Party – Dispensing of Intoxicating Liquor by Park Tavern Page 4
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
2011 Liquor License Renewal for Timber Lodge Steakhouse.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a Resolution for the 2011 Intoxicating On-sale and Sunday Liquor License
Renewal for Taher Restaurant Acquisition LLC dba Timber Lodge Steakhouse located at 6501
Wayzata Boulevard for the license year term through March 1, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the renewal of the liquor license for the Timber Lodge
Steakhouse for the license term through March 1, 2012?
BACKGROUND:
The City has received the state and city liquor license renewal applications from Taher
Restaurant Acquisition LLC, dba Timber Lodge Steakhouse, located at 6501 Wayzata
Boulevard. Due to financial contraints, Timber Lodge Steakhouse temporarily closed in late
2010 and chose not to renew their 2011 liquor license at that time. The licensee is now ready to
reopen in June with changes to their restaurant concepts and is requesting council consideration
of renewal of their liquor license at this time.
Taher Restaurant Acquisition LLC has previously operated as an approved liquor licensed
establishment since 2007 at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard. Their establishment started with the
business name of Alaska Eatery which was amended to Timber Lodge Steakhouse in 2009. Mr.
Bruce Taher remains the President and CEO of Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC.
The State Alcohol and Gambling Board of Minnesota has agreed that because the establishment
will have no changes to ownership or the premises, the reopening would be considered as their
2011 liquor license renewal.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Fees received for liquor license renewals are budgeted as revenues each year and defray the cost
the City experiences to administer and enforce liquor licensing codes and requirements.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Liquor License Renewal for Timber Lodge Steakhouse
RESOLUTION NO. 11- _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
TAHER RESTAURANT ACQUISTION LLC,
DBA TIMBER LODGE STEAKHOUSE,
6501 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
JUNE 1, 2011 – MARCH 1, 2012
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3, provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council
that the applicant and establishment of Taher Restaurant Acquisition LLC dba Timber Lodge
Steakhouse located at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard has met the criteria necessary for issuance of an
On-sale Intoxicating with Sunday Sales liquor license, and the application is hereby approved for
the license year term – June 1, 2011 to March 1, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4e
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Trinicia Hill,
Justin Kaufman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Suzanne Metzger
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for March, 2011
The Board minutes of March 9, 2011 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Contract Extension – Vail Place ROSS Coordinator Services
Ms. Schlegel explained that the HA has contracted with Vail Place for the last
seven years to provide service coordination services at Hamilton House. In 2010
the HA was awarded a three-year HUD ROSS grant (for FY 2009) in partnership
with Vail Place, to fund the coordinator position and program. Commissioner
DuFour moved to authorize the Board Chair and Executive Director to enter into
a contract with Vail Place to provide service coordination services for residents of
Hamilton House April 14, 2011 through April 13, 2014. Commissioner Hill
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
b. CEE Contract Approval – Green Remodeling Program
Ms. Schnitker stated the indemnification clause has been removed from the Loan
Origination Agreement with CEE, as requested by the Board. Commissioner
Kaufman moved to authorize execution of the Loan Origination Agreement for
the Green Remodeling Program with CEE, effective April 13, 2011 through
December 31, 2012.
Commissioner Hill seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0. Discussion
ensued as to whether the HA is able to contractually indemnify. Staff will speak
to the City attorney and bring information back to the Board at a future meeting.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes April 11, 2011
c. Approval of 2011 Utility Allowances for Section 8 and Public Housing Programs,
Resolution Nos. 603 and 604
Ms. Schlegel explained the Public Housing program annual utility allowance
calculation, and Ms. Schnitker explained the Section 8 program calculation. Gas,
electrical and trash removal rates decreased slightly, however water, sewer and
storm drainage rates increased. Commissioner Hill moved to approve Resolution
No. 603, Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Amending the
Section 8 Utility Allowance Schedule, and Resolution No. 604, Resolution of the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park, Utility Allowances for Public Housing
Scattered Site Program. Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion, and the
motion passed 4-0.
d. HUD General Depository Agreements
Ms. Klesk explained that the HA is required by HUD to execute a General
Depository Agreement with each financial institution it has selected as a
depository. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution No. 605,
General Depository Agreement with U.S. Bank, and Resolution No. 606, General
Depository Agreement with Piper Jaffrey & Co. Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion. After discussion, the Commissioners concluded that resolutions were not
required. Commissioner DuFour moved to withdraw her motion to approve
Resolution Nos. 605 and 606, and Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4-0. Commissioner DuFour then moved to approve execution of
the General Depository Agreements with U.S. Bank and Piper Jaffrey & Co., and
Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
e. Proclamation Honoring Board and Commission Volunteers
Ms. Schnitker read the Commissioners a Mayoral Proclamation Honoring Board
and Commission Volunteers for their dedicated service and outstanding
contributions to improve the lives of others and support our community and its
people.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – April, 2011
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – April, 2011
2. Louisiana Court Update – Verbal Report
3. Draft Financial Statements – March, 2011
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner DuFour
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
Public Hearing – On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License – Little Szechuan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application from Eat Art LLC dba Little
Szechuan for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license to be located at 5377 W. 16th Street
with the license term through March 1, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Little Szechuan?
BACKGROUND:
The City received an application from Eat Art, LLC, Inc for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor
license. The establishment will be located at 5377 West 16th Street in the Shops at West End and
plans to open in May. The premises will consist of approximately 3,920 square feet with 130
seats inside and future outdoor patio seating. The hours of operation will be Sunday–Thursday
11 a.m. - 11 p.m. and Friday–Saturday 11 a.m. - 12 a.m.
This is the second restaurant for Little Szechuan. Their other restaurant is located at 422
University Avenue in St. Paul. The restaurant brings culinary art and flavors with authentic
dishes of traditional Szechuan cuisine. The main principals involved are President, Ms. Rong
Bai and Vice President Mr. Jin Zhu. Ms. Bai will also act as general manager until a new
manager is determined.
The Police Department has conducted a full investigation and has found nothing that would
warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s
office should Council members wish to review the information. The required public hearing
legal notice was published in the Sun Sailor Newspaper on May 5, 2011.
Should Council approve the liquor license no actual license is issued until all required
compliance is met with City Inspections Department and the State Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The investigation fee for a new applicant is $500. The yearly license fee is $2,750 (pro-rated).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Major Amendment to the PUD for Park Summit.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the proposed plan for a 192-unit apartment building satisfy the requirements for approval
of an amendment to the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD)?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Summit development site located at
3601 Park Center Boulevard, to be developed by E.J. Plesko and Associates in partnership with
SilverCrest Properties. The PUD amendment would allow the total density on the site to
increase from 145 to 192 residential units. The PUD amendment would also provide for
modifications to the building’s design, including modifications to the architectural style and
materials and a reduction in the building’s overall height from 14 stories to 10 stories (and 145
feet to 125 feet). The building footprint and other site elements remain consistent with the
original PUD approval from 2003. Despite the intent to construct a market-rate building the
developers believe that the building will continue to attract many senior tenants. The resolution
of approval includes a requirement that the developer enter into a development contract with the
City to ensure the completion of the project as reviewed in the Staff report and proposed
resolution.
Project Background:
The Park Summit development was originally approved in 2003 as a 150-unit, 14-story senior
condominium building located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. The proposal called for the
removal of the existing three-story office building on the site. The development would provide
residents with easy access to Wolfe Park and the Rec Center, and was found to be in keeping
with the overall redevelopment plans for the Park Commons area of the City.
As originally proposed, the building would have been designed as part of the overall SilverCrest
senior complex. The complex currently includes a 91-unit assisted living building at 3633 Park
Center Boulevard and the 207-unit, 14-story Parkshores Senior Apartments at 3663 Park Center
Boulevard. The proposed Park Summit building would have been architecturally integrated into
the campus, mimicking the brick and green colored parapet of the 14-story Parkshores building.
In 2005, the developers requested that the age restrictions for the proposed Park Summit
condominium building be removed from the resolution of approval. After review by the
Planning Commission and the City Council, the request was approved subject to a reduction in
building height (from 14 to 12 stories) and total number of units (from 150 to 145).
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Due to market conditions, the proposed condominium building was not constructed. Under the
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, PUD approvals do not expire. For this reason the approved
Park Summit building could move forward with construction at the current time if market
conditions warranted more condominium units within St. Louis Park.
The revised proposal would convert the building to market-rate apartments and increase the
building’s density from 145 to 192 residential units. The height would be further reduced from
12 stories to 10 stories, and the architectural style would also be modified, as depicted below.
Zoning and Site Analysis:
Residential Density
The revised proposal would alter the Park Summit building from condominiums to apartments.
The residential density would increase from 145 to 192 units. The additional units can be
accommodated despite a reduction in building height and with the same building footprint,
because the size of the units and unit mix (1-bedroom vs. 2-bedroom) will be different than was
proposed for the condominium building. Total building height will be 126 feet.
Density for the SilverCrest Campus was set by guidelines adopted into the 1999 Comprehensive
Plan. The intent is for a “maximum density at or near 75 units per acre when averaged over the
three parcels,” and “a maximum floor area ratio of 2.3 when averaged over the three parcels.”
With an increase in the number of dwelling units from 145 to 192, the overall residential density
of the three parcels is 77.8 units per acre, which is near the recommended 75 units per acre. The
overall Floor Area Ratio for the site is 2.06, below the maximum permitted floor area ratio of
2.3.
Traffic Analysis
Because the current proposal includes a higher residential density than originally approved, off-
site traffic impacts were identified for further study. SRF Consulting was hired by the City to
conduct a traffic study, which was funded by the developer. The traffic study is attached for
review. The findings showed that the traffic generated by the Park Summit development would
have only a moderate impact on traffic conditions in the area. One roadway modification was
recommended.
Because of the impacts to the traffic patterns around the site, SRF recommended a consolidated
driveway access, depicted on page six of the traffic study, located between the overall
SilverCrest campus and Target. The consolidated driveway would reduce the number of curb
cuts on both sides of Park Center Boulevard and increase the safety levels for drivers entering
2003 Proposal
Amended Proposal
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
and exiting the Target parcel and the SilverCrest campus. It would also clarify the pedestrian
crossing of Park Center Boulevard. The traffic study recommends that the consolidation include
an option for a traffic signal at the consolidated access point. The traffic signal, though not
needed to handle the additional traffic coming from the Park Summit project, would further
improve safety conditions along Park Center Boulevard. The developers from Park Summit
reviewed the traffic study and agreed with its conclusions; they also have no objection to funding
their portion of the potential costs associated with modifications to Park Center Boulevard and
their entrance.
Construction of a consolidated access would impact both the Park Summit development and
Target. Staff has met with Target on several occasions to discuss the need for access
modifications; the proposed changes were well received by Target, although Target has not yet
identified how they would like to fund their portion of the improvements. It would be possible
for the improvements to be handled either via a direct payment to the City, or by the creation of a
Special Assessment for the improvements. After additional review of the traffic study and
conditions in the area the City Engineer has concluded that the modifications to the center
median and construction of the consolidated access point should move forward for traffic safety
reasons.
Work being done on Park Center Boulevard this summer as part of a Municipal State Aid (MSA)
roadway project will allow for the median improvements to be constructed during that project;
coordinating with the MSA project will reduce the need to cut into the new pavement. It is
expected that those improvements, including the mill and overlay over the remaining distance to
West 36th Street, will proceed this summer – assuming all agreements are finalized in a timely
enough manner. If a signal is included as part of the project, it may be bid separately from the
existing MSA project. A requirement has been added to the attached approval resolution stating
that the Park Summit developers will agree to fund their proportional share of the costs of this
project, as determined by the City Engineer. The final amount of this funding will be determined
by the City Engineer and included in the development agreement between the City and the
developer. Staff will continue to work with Target to finalize their participation in the project.
If Target decides against participation, the median improvements and improvements to the Park
Summit side of the site could still go forward as part of the MSA project. The changes would
modify the entrances to Target’s site; their full access across from Parkshores Apartments would
become a right-in/right-out access, and they would have the opportunity to reconstruct their
current right-in only access off Park Center Boulevard to function as a full access point.
Parking
Only minor changes are anticipated to the approved parking plan for the Park Summit
development. The building includes two levels of below-grade parking. There are 239
underground parking spaces and 15 surface spaces available for residents and their guests.
The original PUD approval allowed for a 15% PUD reduction to the number of required parking
spaces. At the present time, the developer is seeking a reduction of 6%. Parking regulations in
the Zoning Ordinance were modified in 2007. The parking requirement for multi-family
developments was changed from two spaces per unit to one space per bedroom. Percentage
reductions in required parking were also eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance. However, the
PUD was approved under the previous Zoning Ordinance. Reducing the allowable reduction
(from 15% to 6%) brings the PUD into greater compliance with current regulations and can be
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
allowed if the City finds the proposed parking to be adequate. A condition has also been
included to require that overflow parking at the Parkshores Apartment building be made
available to Park Summit residents, should it become necessary.
Park Summit Parking Requirement
Number
of units
Parking
requirement
# spaces
required
# spaces
provided Surplus/(Deficit)
1 BR units 114 1 space per unit 114
2 BR units 78 2 spaces per unit 156
Total 192 270 254 (16)
The developer hired a parking consultant, the Lansing Melbourne Group, to complete a parking
study for the PUD site, attached for review. An analysis of the overall PUD was needed because
there is excess parking available at the Parkshores Apartments that could be utilized, if
necessary, for the Park Summit proposal. At the Parkshores Apartments, there are 236 spaces
available. The developer has indicated that demand for these spaces does not exceed 80% of the
total number of spaces available, depending on season and resident turnover. This generally
results in over 40 vacant parking spaces at the building. For this reason, were overflow parking
ever necessary for the Park Summit building, the excess parking spaces at Parkshores could be
utilized. The code analysis, included in the parking study, supports this conclusion. The parking
at the SilverCrest campus and at Park Summit should be more than adequate and it is appropriate
to approve the 6% (16 space) reduction.
Bicycle parking on the site will be provided for residents in storage lockers inside the building,
within the underground parking area, and within the outdoor patio area. The developer has
indicated an ability to meet the full bicycle parking requirement for 217 spaces; many of these
spaces will be provided internal to the building. Proof of parking will be acceptable for a portion
of the bicycle spaces, as reflected in the recommended conditions.
Landscaping & Tree Replacement
The proposed revisions to the number of units and building design do not have a major impact on
the landscaping and tree replacement plans originally approved in 2003. The approval in 2003
included a landscaping plan that complied with the landscaping standards in effect at that time;
the Council adopted new standards in 2007. The proposed changes to the landscaping plan bring
the development into greater compliance with current landscaping standards. It also includes a
substantial number of new boulevard trees along Park Center Boulevard and West 36th Street.
Proposed landscaping on the site includes:
Trees: 77 new trees (38 ornamental species)
Shrubs: 390 new shrubs
There are a number of alternative landscaping options included in the site plan. The developers
plan to enhance the patio to the north of the building to integrate it with the sidewalk and
pedestrian amenities found along W. 36th Street. In keeping with the 2005 approval, the
developers plan to continue a $40,000 contribution to the City for public art. A roof patio, not
part of the 2003 design, is also proposed. The roof patio would be complemented by a green
roof over a portion of that section of the 10th floor. Each of these items qualifies as alternative
landscaping options under the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Sidewalk & Trail connections
An existing trail connects Park Center Boulevard with the Rec Center and Wolfe Park. It is
located between the Park Summit site and the existing Assisted Living building. The trail
connection in this location would be maintained during construction and enhanced long-term by
the addition of new landscaping and pedestrian amenities installed as part of the development.
The developer revised the plans based on comments from the Planning Commission to improve
sidewalk connectivity between the building and adjacent sidewalks. Most directly, changes were
made to the design of the sidewalk from the building’s primary entrance to the sidewalk along
Park Center Boulevard. These changes are reflected in the attached site plans.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) in the RC Zoning District is based on the total lot
area. The requirement is for a minimum of 12% of the total lot area to be developed as DORA.
The Planning Commission requested further review of the proposed DORA areas prior to City
Council review. DORA is proposed as follows:
Zoning Ordinance requirement: 9,974 square feet
2003 Approval: 23,200 square feet
2011 Proposal: 30,375 square feet
The proposed building design increases the amount of DORA in comparison to the previous
proposal, through the inclusion of a rooftop deck for residents’ use. The primary reason that the
level of DORA provided exceeds the requirement so greatly is because the standards for DORA
were revised for the RC Zoning District in 2004. Under the original proposal, DORA was
required at a rate based on the total floor area of the entire building. A site map of the DORA
has been included in the attachments.
Building Materials
The proposed changes to the Park Summit building include different building materials than
previously approved. Rather than reflecting the style of the 14-story Parkshores Apartment
building, the new building will have its own architectural style. It will be residential in character
but stand apart from the residential buildings to the south. The proposal continues to meet the
standards for Class I materials found in the Zoning Ordinance; the requirement is met
predominately through the use of brick and glass materials. The design will also incorporate
prefinished metal, which is classified as a Class II material.
Shading
A shade study was completed by the architects to ensure that the revised building plan does not
cast a shadow that would exceed the shading provisions found in architectural design section of
the Zoning Ordinance. It was found that the revised plans do not cast a shadow on adjacent
buildings, and that the plan revisions actually reduce the level of shading in comparison to the
original approval in 2003. The shade study, attached, also reviewed the building’s impact on the
Rec Center aquatic park and slides. The study indicates that the aquatic park would not be
shaded by the proposed building.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Utility Access
Water and sewer access is provided using City infrastructure in W. 36th Street. The existing
water and sewer lines have sufficient available capacity to serve the proposed building. Other
utility services, including electric, natural gas, cable and telephone, are all already serving the
site; the Zoning Ordinance requires that all utilities be placed underground.
The City Engineer reviewed the proposed plans and determined that because there was no
change in the building’s footprint from the 2003 approvals, there is not a need to change the
proposed conveyance system for stormwater. At the time of approval in 2003, requirements for
surface water management remained quite minimal, and individual treatment facilities, such as
ponds or underground storage, remained rare. The developer continues to work with Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to ensure that all necessary reviews are completed. Permits
from both the City and MCWD will be required prior to construction.
Park and Trail Dedication
Construction of new housing within the City requires either park dedication or the payment of a
park dedication fee. The park dedication fee for 2011 is $1,500 per dwelling unit. For the 192-
unit Park Summit proposal, total park dedication fees will be $288,000. Park improvements at
Wolfe Park, immediately west of the development site, are planned within the next five years as
part of the City’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), funded in part by park dedication fees such
as those required for the Park Summit development. Improvements to Wolfe Park that are
planned within the next five years through the CIP include new playground equipment, board
walk replacement around Wolfe Lake, new skate park equipment, and pond landscaping and
replanting.
Trail dedication fees for 2011 are $225 per dwelling unit. The total trail dedication fee for Park
Summit is $43,200. Trail dedication fees are used for construction and maintenance of the trails
within the City. There are a number of trails that may be funded by the City as part of this
dedication, including trails within Wolfe Park and trails connecting West 36th Street (and 3601
Park Center Boulevard) to the future LRT station at Beltline Boulevard. In particular, the City’s
Sidewalk and Trails Plan calls for construction of a new trail along the west side of Beltline
Boulevard, where there is currently no pedestrian infrastructure to the area where the future LRT
station will be constructed.
Public Process
The developer held a neighborhood meeting on April 4th to discuss the revised proposal with
impacted residents and business owners. Residents from the surrounding area were notified; also
notified were the neighborhood leaders from the Minikahda Vista, Minikahda Oaks, and
Elmwood neighborhoods. No residents attended the meeting. One neighboring business owner
was present at the meeting to discuss and review the proposal.
Planning Commission – Public Hearing
As part of the review process, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 6th.
There was no one present to speak. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are attached for
review. Major issues discussed by the Planning Commission included Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area (DORA), sidewalk access, and off-street parking. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, the developer provided additional details to address the questions. The
Zoning and Site Analysis, above, reflects the additional details provided by the developer.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Summary:
The Major Amendment to the PUD conforms to the intent of the original planning studies
completed for the Park Commons area and the approved Final PUD for the SilverCrest campus,
last reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2005. Changes to the proposal include an
increased residential density and revised building design, with approximately the same building
footprint and a similar landscaping plan to the original approval. Staff and Planning Commission
recommend approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed development does not require any City financial commitment. However, the City
is collaborating with the developer on street improvements; funding sources for the City portion
of the street improvements have already been identified (MSA dollars) and the collaboration will
only serve to improve safety and traffic conditions within the previously planned City
improvements. The development includes Park Dedication fees and Trail Dedication fees, as
well as a contribution for public art.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Park Summit apartment building fits within the Strategic Direction adopted by the
Council in 2007 to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. The development also
includes a developer contribution for a public art, meeting the Strategic Direction for promoting
and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives.
Attachments: Resolution
Minutes – Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 2011
SRF Traffic Study
Parking Analysis Provided by Developer
Site Plan and Related Documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NOS. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, 04-024, AND 05-167
ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7, 1996, DECEMBER 2, 1996, OCTOBER 7, 2003,
FEBRUARY 2, 2004, AND DECEMBER 5, 2005 APPROVING A
FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
AND CONSOLIDATING CONDITIONS FROM AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT
AND PUD FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
GRANTING FINAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT AT 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD AND
COMBINING PROPOSED AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARKSHORE CAMPUS AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR
MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS AND INCREASING DENSITY
PARK SUMMIT APARTMENTS
3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, SilverCrest Properties, LLC has made application to the City Council for a
Major Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow multi-family apartments and increase the density
from 145 to 192 units at 3601 Park Center Boulevard within a R-C, Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District having the following legal description:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered information related to Planning Case No.
11-04-PUD and the effect of the proposed multi-family apartments and increased density on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Major Amendment to the Final
PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with
certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor
will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that
the proposed amendment to the Final PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply
with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5) and 36-266(16).
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-62 on May 19, 1986 approving
a special permit to allow construction of a 207 unit senior citizen apartment building at 3663
Park Center Boulevard; and
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-153 on October 7, 1996
approving an amendment to the existing special permit for the 207-unit senior apartment
building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to allow certain site design changes (realignment of an
existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and
modifications to the approved landscape plan) in association with separate PUD approval of a 45
unit assisted living building on a portion of 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now 3633 Park Center
Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-152 on October 7, 1996
approving the Final PUD for the existing office building, removal of the bank with in-vehicle
service and new 45 unit assisted living building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now also 3633
Park Center Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-189 on December 2, 1996
rescinding Resolution No. 96-152 approving the Final PUD in order to correct the legal
description and address; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-101 on September 7, 1999
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for 3601, 3633
and 3663 Park Center Boulevard allowing certain modifications to ordinance requirements and
parameters for future redevelopment of the office building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-102 on September 7, 1999
approving the preliminary and final plat for Silvercrest Addition to reconfigure internal lot lines
allowing a 46 unit addition to the assisted living building on Lot 2 for a total of 91 units and
requiring trail easements over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard
respectively), a road easement over Lot 3, trail construction over Lots 1 and 2, a parking
agreement between Lots 2 and 3, certain maintenance agreements, and cooperation with the City
regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and trail on Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2143-99 on September 7, 1999
vacating certain drainage, utility and trail easements at 3601, 1633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard effective upon recording new easements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-140 on December 6, 1999
amending and restating the conditions of Resolution No. 99-102 to extend the plat filing deadline
to January 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-138 on October 7, 2003
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the text of the Redevelopment
Plan to allow density and floor area ratio (FAR) averaging over the 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park
Center Boulevard properties, to increase the allowable average floor area ratio for all three
properties, to increase allowable height for future redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center
Boulevard, and to allow a curb cut on the south edge of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard property
(until such time as access consolidation could be achieved), and to adopt an overall
Redevelopment Plan for the three properties;
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-139 on October 7, 2003
approving a Preliminary PUD for redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard office
building for a 150 unit senior housing condominium building and consolidating conditions from
the PUD for 3601 and 3633 Park Center Boulevard and special permit for 3663 Park Center
Boulevard granting Preliminary PUD approval for proposed and existing development of the
Parkshore Campus at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 04-024 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2004 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 05-167 on December 5, 2005
approving a major amendment to the Final PUD for elimination of age restrictions at Park
Summit Condominiums, 3601 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is also the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions
of Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, 04-024, and 05-167 to add the amendments now
required, to reference the required conditions of Resolution No. 99-140, and thereby to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject properties into this resolution, and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 86-20-SP, 96-16-PUD, 96-25-CUP, 99-14-
CP, 99-15-S, 99-16-V, 03-37-CP, 03-38-PUD, 05-33-PUD, and 11-04-PUD are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 05-167 (filed as
Document No. 8762949) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and
amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting
multi-family apartments and increasing the density from 145 to 192 units within the R-C, Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District at the location described above based on the following
conditions:
A. From special permit Res. 96-153 3663 Park Ctr. Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center Blvd.):
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site
Plan; Exhibit B - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit C - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit D - First
Floor Plan; Exhibit E - Typical Floor Plan; Exhibit F - West Elevation and North
Elevation; Exhibit G - East Elevation and South Elevation; and Exhibit H -
Landscape Site Plan, (the floor plans are for general purposes only.) except as
amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004 and as modified by the
following conditions:
2. The use of the site shall be for senior citizen housing containing 207 units.
3. That all trash be stored inside the building and there be no outdoor storage of trash or
trash containers.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the ground and no direct rays shall
extend beyond the property line.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
5. That the driveway and private entrance contain concrete, poured-in-place curbing
measuring six inches above and below the adjacent roadway surface.
6. That the upper portions of the ramp in the interior of the parking lot contain 5%
landscaping and pedestrian circulation and additional ornamental trees be provided
along the south and east lot lines as shown on the revised plan, and that up to 20
parking spaces be permitted to be eliminated to provide for the additional
landscaping.
7. That erosion control provisions be employed during the construction phase to protect
Wolfe Lake and to minimize erosion on the site and runoff of erosion material into
other private or public property.
8. That the entrance road be designed and constructed in a manner so as to protect the
City storm sewer system and as specified by the Director of Public Works.
9. That driveways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 6%.
10. That the link from the cul de sac to the sidewalk be constructed at a grade not to
exceed 5% and that all other walkways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 4%
and curb drops be provided at all intersections with the private and public roads.
11. That the east-west walkway along the north property line be at least as wide as the
adjacent trail in Wolfe Park to which it is to link with. Said walkway to be extended
by the applicant to the walkway in Wolfe Park and be lighted using decorative
lighting to match the lighting in Wolfe Park.
12. That prior to construction, an easement be provided to the City permitting the five
feet parallel to Park Center Boulevard to be used for pedestrian purposes and that a
pedestrian easement approximately 25 feet wide be provided along the north property
line for pedestrian purposes. (The width is wider to accommodate the curvilinear
nature of the design.)
13. That all improvements including buildings, landscaping, parking, curbing and other
improvements as contained on the improved exhibits be completed by May 15, 1988;
however, if a certificate of full occupancy is received by September 1, 1987, all
landscaping and other improvements must be completed by October 15, 1987.
14. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-25-
CUP to permit realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs;
construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to the approved
landscape plan to allow construction of a 45 unit Assisted Living facility on 3633
Park Center Boulevard subject to the following conditions:
a) The northern portion of the site shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with Exhibit I: Demolition Plan, Exhibit J: Site Plan, Exhibit K:
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit L: Landscape Plan such
documents incorporated by reference herein.
b) Prior to issuance of an erosion control permit and commencement of site work, a
14 feet wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to
the Director of Park and Recreation and the City Attorney.
c) Prior to issuance of utility permits, details of the proposed storm sewer
connection shall be approved by the City Engineer.
d) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the adjacent Assisted Living
facility, the trail realignment shall be completed by the applicant in accordance
with City specifications and in a manner acceptable to the Director of Park and
Recreation, unless a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of
said trail construction has been submitted in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
15. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant prior to issuance of
erosion control permit and commencement of site work.
B. From Res. 96-189 final PUD for 3601 Park Center Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center
Blvd.):
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A:
Demolition Plan, Exhibit B: Site Plan, Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control Plan, Exhibit D: Landscape Plan, Exhibits E and F: Elevations, Exhibit G:
Fence, Enclosure Designs, except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on
February 2, 2004, and the following conditions:
a) Approval of the Final PUD does not grant any concept approval for future
phases of development involving this property.
b) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon City Council approval of an
amendment to the Continued Special Permit for the Parkshore Place apartment
property to address associated improvements involving that property; approval
of the Final PUD is further contingent upon adherence by the applicant to any
conditions of such Special Permit approval.
c) Approval of the Final PUD includes modification of the lot width requirement in
the "R-C" District from 80 feet to 40 feet and allows for administrative approval
of a subdivision to create a separate lot for the Assisted Living property (3633
Park Center Boulevard) as shown on Exhibit B.
d) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon termination of the drive thru bank
lease, once the current term expires, and removal of the drive thru building.
e) Evidence of Watershed District approval shall be submitted prior to issuance of
erosion control and building permits; the project shall comply with other City,
State, and Federal agency requirements as applicable.
f) Final Utility Plans and evidence of property owner consent to sanitary sewer
connections shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of utility and building permits.
g) Samples of final building materials and colors and potential minor changes to the
exhibits, as needed, shall be submitted and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of buildings permits. Use of vinyl
siding is expressly prohibited.
h) A development agreement between the applicant and EDA shall be executed
prior to issuance of building permits.
i) Irrigation and Site Lighting Plans (including photometric) shall be approved by
the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits.
j) Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshall prior to
issuance of building permits.
k) Joint parking and access agreements between the office/bank property, Assisted
Living Property, and Parkshore Place apartment property, in a form acceptable
to the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit
for the Assisted Living facility.
l) All improvements shall be completed in a manner acceptable to the City prior to
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, except that a temporary Occupancy Permit
may be issued prior to completion of landscaping improvements provided a
letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said improvements is
submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
C. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 2, 2004 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and to grant Final PUD approval for a 150 unit senior condominium
development (“Park Summit Condominiums”) at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and consolidation
of access and related improvements at 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits, which shall include the revised Parking Structure plan sheet stamped
as Received by the City December 22, 2003 and the Proposed Access and Internal
Circulation Plan stamped as Received by the City December 30, 2003. The Proposed
Access and Internal Circulation Plan may be revised based upon more detailed future
roadway design work. The Official Exhibits shall also include the revised Description
Sketch survey showing existing trail and roadway easements stamped as Received by
the City January 16, 2004, and the revised Dimensional Site Plan stamped as
Received by the City on January 16, 2004. The Proposed Alternate Entrance on the
Dimensional Site Plan is not approved.
2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the following
requirements:
a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between the
developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be limited to,
conditions for the developer meeting the following requirements:
i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th Street, and
Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left-in, right-out only.
Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Park Center Blvd. south of
the senior condominium property.
ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction.
iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets.
iv) Tree replacement.
v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties as
shown conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan
(dated December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits.
vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard and the
possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway.
vii) On-going responsibility for maintaining the strip of park land located east
of the condominium and west of the park access drive off of 36th Street.
viii) Adherence to the parking management plan and requirements to convert the
proof-of-parking spaces if directed by the City in response to on- or off-site
parking problems.
ix) Agreement to pay the equivalent of special service district fees previously
paid by the office development for the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property.
x) Adherence to required conditions in the homeowner’s association
declaration documents.
b) Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree replacement/landscaping.
c) Required tree protection, erosion control fencing, trail closed signs, and safety
fencing shall be in place and approved by the City prior to any grading and
demolition activities.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
d) The homeowners association documents shall be as approved by the City
Attorney and shall prohibit the rental or sale of guest parking spaces and the sale
or rental of any parking spaces to non-residents. The homeowner’s association
documents shall also address continued payment of Special Service District fees
equivalent to fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center
Blvd.
e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the three lots
within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint parking and access
agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail easement.
f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits,
Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and other
agencies.
h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility connections
and disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection of sidewalk, trail,
lighting and streetscape elements and replacement of any damaged elements,
j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance.
k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior to site
work.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements,
the developer shall comply with the following:
a) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction.
b) Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by the City.
c) Lighting plans, including photometrics to be submitted to and approved by the
City for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout
the development, and shall meet all City standards.
d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement prior to
building permit.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and
10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties including the City aquatic facility.
d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land
property.
f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the 3601 Park
Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved grading plan and
Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to
approval of a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any
temporary or permanent signs and shall include designation of guest parking spaces.
6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy of the
senior condominium building:
a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other than
landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of landscaping shall be
submitted.
b) Submit as-built plans to the City in electronic or Mylar format for all civil
infrastructure.
c) Meet any other conditions as required by the development agreement prior to
occupancy.
d) If reasonably possible, complete improvements in Condition 7. Otherwise, make
the temporary construction access "permanent" until such time as the
consolidated access is completed.
7. The developer agrees to close the driveway access on the 3601 Park Center Blvd
property (Lot 1), repair the right-of-way, and construct the consolidated PUD access,
at developer's or property owners' expense, at the time of reconstruction of Park
Center Blvd. adjacent to the PUD site.
8. The developer or property owners agree to pay a fair share of any future traffic signal
at the consolidated PUD access.
9. The developer or property owners agree to continue paying the equivalent of special
service district fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd.
10. The developer or property owners agree to comply with the conditions of Resolution
99-102, including but not limited to cooperation with the City regarding future
construction of the north-south roadway and additional trail construction on the 3663
Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 3).
11. The developer or property owner(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
D. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on December 5, 2005 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for the Park Summit building at
3601 Park Center Boulevard:
1. The Park Summit building will be revised to be a maximum of 12 stories and 126 feet
in height, having a maximum of 145 condominium units.
2. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit
Condominiums, however the condominium units will be marketed to buyers 55 years
of age and older.
3. The developer will provide a minimum of 255 parking spaces for the Park Summit
condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. A minimum of 240 of those
spaces must be provided underground. If shown to be needed, the developer shall
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
allow underground parking at the Park Shores apartment building (3663 Park Center
Boulevard) to be leased to residents of the Park Summit Condominium building.
4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Park Summit
Condominiums, the developer shall:
a. Construct a consolidated driveway access to the campus, completing all
driveway and sidewalk connections as shown on the revised site plan. The
direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard will be closed and the access
to the campus shall be via the consolidated campus driveway as shown on the
official site plan. This requirement shall supersede any other requirement in all
previous resolutions regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park Center
Boulevard.
b. Grant the City of St. Louis Park an easement for the purpose of the installation
of wireless internet equipment and related appurtenances.
c. Donate $40,000 for the purpose of erecting public art within or near the campus
area for the benefit of the residents of the campus and the City. The developer
shall work with the Director of Parks and Recreation to facilitate the decision
process regarding the type and location of the public art installation.
d. Ensure that all mechanical equipment, including that mechanical equipment
already installed on other buildings within the PUD, is completely and fully
screened from off-site view in accordance with zoning regulations.
e. Provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at the intersection of
West 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard.
1. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 16, 2011 to incorporate or amend
all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for the Park Summit
building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits.
2. The PUD allows for the construction of a 192-unit, ten-story apartment building
at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. There are no age restrictions on the building.
3. A parking reduction of 6% is approved, reducing the total number of off-street
parking spaces required by 16, from 270 to 254 spaces.
4. Overflow parking shall be allowed within the three-site PUD campus.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Developer shall submit a financial security to the city in the form of cash
escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree
replacement, landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets, and any required
public improvements.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
b. Developer shall provide to the city all fees and contributions included in the
resolution.
c. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
d. All necessary permits must be obtained.
6. Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City to address the
following issues:
a. Financial securities required by the City.
b. Payment of fees and contributions included in the resolution.
c. Contribution and participation in the construction of a combined entrance for
the PUD site along Park Center Boulevard.
d. Shared parking between parcels within the PUD.
e. Maintenance of landscaping on the site and within adjacent rights-of-way.
7. The fees and contributions of this resolution shall supersede any required under
prior approvals, and shall for the Park Summit development at 3601 Park be as
follows:
a. Park Dedication Fee for 192 housing units of $1,500 per unit for a total of
$288,000.
b. Trail Dedication Fee for 192 housing units of $225 per unit for a total of
$43,200.
c. A public art contribution of $40,000.
8. Developer shall participate in the construction of a consolidated access point for
the PUD campus, including financial contributions to the project as determined by
the City Engineer and finalized in the development agreement.
9. A total of 217 bicycle parking spaces are required. Proof of parking is acceptable
for outdoor bicycle parking, but a minimum of 18 outdoor bicycle parking spaces
must be provided.
10. The landscape plans shall be revised to remove all ash trees from the planting
plan, and the tree removal plan shall be revised to include removal and
replacement of all ash trees located within the adjacent boulevard.
11. All utility service lines shall be placed below ground per the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
12. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include means to
ensure it is fully screened from off-site view.
13. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the house of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a
public street.
f. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
14. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the
following shall be completed:
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the requirements of
the Fire Marshal.
b. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the requirements set forth in
the Planning Case file.
15. Sidewalks shall be maintained at all times in good repair to allow for adequate
pedestrian access to and from the site. To protect the health, welfare and safety of
residents, customers, and employees, snow removal on all sidewalks shall begin
with a trigger depth of ½”, with a continuous effort until the snow event has
ceased and complete cleanup has occurred.
16. All sidewalks shall be maintained free from ice at all times.
17. Snow must be hauled from the site to an off-site location.
18. To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, the installation of any on-site traffic
calming measures not indicated on the official exhibits, including speed bumps,
shall require a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Planning Commission Meeting of April 6, 2011
Excerpt – Unofficial Minutes
3. Hearings
A. Major Amendment to PUD – Park Summit Apartments
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: E.J. Plesko & Associates
Case No.: 11-04-PUD
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He discussed the project background,
traffic analysis, parking, landscaping, tree replacement, shading and the public process.
Commissioner Morris said the outdoor dining area appeared to be the only place to
calculate a Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). He asked how that would be an
increase from the previous proposal.
Mr. Fulton stated that activity space, trail, park connection, patio, and rooftop deck are
part of the DORA calculation.
Bob Bistry, HOK Architects, displayed an early image that mimicked more closely the
original landscape idea and he explained how it had been refined with feedback from
staff.
Commissioner Morris asked about the interpretation of the parking requirements. He
said the Silvercrest property to the south has the required parking, but it was usually only
at 80% capacity, which leaves additional room should the new development need
overflow parking.
Mr. Fulton responded that was the correct interpretation, explaining that when Park
Shores apartments were constructed, there was a fairly low age of resident moving into
the building and usually they had two cars. As the building has matured, the age of the
residents has also increased and very few of the residents now have two cars and this was
taken into account as part of the review of the PUD proposal. They wouldn’t expect the
residents in the south building to increase the number of cars. The 40 parking spaces
were deemed to be available for the remainder of the PUD.
Commissioner Morris noted they were required to have 240 parking spaces and they had
a 40 parking space excess. If they were to lease it to another owner so they could have
the excess, it would be leasing away the required parking spaces.
Mr. Fulton replied that this is a single PUD under the same owner. He added that a PUD
generally allows shared parking between the uses.
Commissioner Morris asked if the parking issue ever arises and the owner wants to divide
the PUD, would they be forced to have the required parking on both sites because they
were severing the parcels?
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Mr. Fulton replied that approval would be required in order to make some kind of major
modification to the PUD in the future.
Ms. McMonigal added that staff would evaluate it at the time. They would also
evaluate a new building to make sure the parking was working if a change were
requested.
Commissioner Carper asked for clarification on the statement “the consolidated access
point could be constructed with provisions for adding a signal when it becomes
necessary.” He asked if a signal would be constructed.
Mr. Fulton reviewed details from the SRF Traffic Study, which recommended a
consolidated access point. In the worst case scenario, the developer would construct just
their side of the consolidated access and the changes would be made as necessary by the
developer to modify the interior curbs along Park Center Blvd. He added that a provision
would be made in the developer’s contract to agree to accrue the cost of that portion of
the signal that would benefit their site in the future. It is something that needs to be
worked out with the property owner’s assistance and it is a matter of how it is financed.
Ms. McMonigal stated the intent would be to have a signal there at some point in the
future. The City Engineer is evaluating whether or not the signal would be necessary
immediately or not.
Commissioner Carper asked if the intersection were going to be constructed as if it would
handle a stop light.
Mr. Fulton stated if this is constructed as proposed, all of the conduit would be put in, the
appropriate pads would be poured, and engineering completed for the signal to be
installed. It is a Municipal State Aid street. It is in pretty rough condition and is
proposed for reconstruction later this summer. The City Engineer is trying to balance all
of it and working on designs to allow the modifications to the curb.
David Gevers, Director of Development, E.J. Plesko and Associates, said they were
excited about the project and believed it was a great opportunity to provide another
addition to St. Louis Park and create a connection to Excelsior and Grand.
Bob Bistry, HOK Architects, presented a massing model of the project.
Commissioner Morris stated what Mr. Bistry was showing as part of the DORA was part
of the public space. It was not accessible solely to the residents He said he wouldn’t call
the nodes DORA. He said he didn’t see any DORA calculations on Park Center Blvd. or
on 36th St. Commissioner Morris said it appears that the DORA is on the east face and
he was not sure how much of that green space was accessible due to the slope.
Mr. Bistry noted the east face was a flat area. The berming was up to their property and
then it was a flat, usable lawn. He spoke about the terrace area, fitness area, and how it
transitions to the park.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Mr. Fulton indicated the DORA requirement decreased because the building size was
reduced by two stories. Staff looked at the 2005 approvals as part of the analysis and
added the roof deck. He said this would be verified before the request went to the City
Council.
Commissioner Morris commented that there was only one landscaping plan in his
material. He said he was concerned that 36th St. and the Park Center facings did not
have any connection from the sidewalk and street up into the complex. The first
connection he saw was at the drive entrance at the Park Center Blvd where the trail came
in. He said he didn’t see any pedestrian connectivity from where the sidewalk ended at
the first parking stall, everything else is parking lanes. He remarked there was no
connectivity for the pedestrian movement coming out of the main entry of the building.
Commissioner Morris asked about handicapped accessibility.
Mr. Bistry noted the location of the handicapped stalls which are connected to a walk,
which is the main entry into the building.
Commissioner Morris said people have to go into the parking lane and then travel across
the garage entrance as there was no sidewalk connectivity.
Commissioner Morris said if a resident wanted to go to Target, they would have to go
through the car lanes and into the driveway.
Mr. Bistry replied that was a great point and the kind of feedback they were looking for.
He pointed out a sidewalk at the main entry. Some of the later plans also show more
green space and another sitting area in the courtyard. He said they were committed to the
total amount of tree plantings and it would be at least the amount of the original approval.
Commissioner Morris commented that the tenth floor outdoor recreation area looks to be
perpetually in the shadows.
Mr. Bistry said for most of the time this would be used, the sun angles would work
reasonably well. They have south exposure and the opportunity for the community room
to have views back to the City outweighed what it was going to be used for from a sun
standpoint.
Commissioner Carper asked if the walls adjacent to the 36th Street sidewalk had a square
edge wall of reasonable height. He said that the neighbor to the east is a skateboard park
and the walls may be actively used by the skateboarders.
Mr. Bistry said he appreciated the comment and would address it.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson stated the project became better and better as it was tweaked.
He liked the lower scale and smaller profile. The architecture was well thought out.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Commissioner Carper said he was also very impressed with the project. They had done a
tremendous job and put a lot of consideration into how it fit in with the City.
Commissioner Morris agreed it was a good plan. He would like the developer to think
about some details. The general concept is great. The traffic issue was critical and
impacts a lot of the development around this proposed project. He wanted to see a
second look at DORA calculations and requested staff look at it again.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the major
amendment to the PUD, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
SRF No. 0107329
MEMORANDUM
TO: Adam Fulton, City Planner
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Marie Cote, PE, Principal
Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Engineer
DATE: January 7, 2011
SUBJECT: PARK SUMMIT REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As requested, we have completed a traffic study for the proposed Park Summit redevelopment in
the southeast quadrant of 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard, in the City of St. Louis Park
(see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to evaluate the traffic
impacts to the adjacent roadway network, review the site access, provide a trip generation
comparison between previously proposed land uses for the site and recommend any necessary
improvements to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. This study includes an operations
analysis during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the roadway network for existing and future
build conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Traffic operations were analyzed at the following key intersections:
36th Street and Park Center Boulevard
Park Center Boulevard and Existing Site Access
Park Center Boulevard and Target/Senior Living Development Site Access
Current traffic control includes signalization at the 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard
intersection and side-street stop control at the remaining intersections. It should be noted that the
existing southbound right-in only access from Park Center Boulevard to the Target site was taken
into consideration for this study. However, it was not analyzed as a key intersection since it is a
right-in only access and is an uncontrolled intersection.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 23
NORTH
NorthPROJECT LOCATION00107329December 2010Project LocationPark Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 1H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 1_Project Location.cdrTH 100W 36TH STPARK CENTER BLVDCity Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 24
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 3
Vehicular turning movement counts were collected on December 7, 2010 at each of the key
intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. In addition, the southbound right-in only access
from Park Center Boulevard to the Target site was counted to better understand traffic flows in
the area. Existing geometrics, traffic controls and peak hour traffic volumes for the key
intersections are shown in Figure 2.
An operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates in the study area. All intersections were
analyzed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software (version 7).
Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates how well an
intersection is operating. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle. Intersections
are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and
LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. In the Twin Cities metropolitan
area, LOS A through D is generally considered acceptable by drivers. For side-street stop
controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of
service of the minor approach. Traffic operations at unsignalized intersections with side-street
stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection
level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and
the capability of the intersection to support those volumes. Second, it is important to consider the
delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is
attributed to the side-street approaches in most cases.
Results of the existing operations analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections
currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
with existing traffic control and geometric layout. Some minor queuing issues were identified at
the intersection of 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. The 95th
percentile queue for the northbound left-turn movement was calculated at 195 feet which
exceeds the available storage (150 feet) provided between 36th Street and the existing site
access. This queue will occasionally (approximately five percent of the p.m. peak hour) extend
into the site access intersection, potentially blocking southbound motorists from accessing the
site. In addition, the eastbound and westbound left-turn queues on 36th Street occasionally
exceed the available storage capacity and spill back into the through lanes. This is mainly due to
the fact that both of the existing turn lanes are less than 150 feet in length due to the adjacent
intersection spacing along 36th Street. It is important to note that these queues do not
significantly impact intersection operations and do not spill back into adjacent intersections.
Table 1
Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
36th Street and Park Center Boulevard B C
Park Center Boulevard and Existing Site Access * A/A A/C
Park Center Boulevard and Target/Senior Living Access * A/A A/D
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is shown
followed by the worst approach LOS.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 25
NORTH
North00107329December 2010Existing Conditions (Year 2010)Park Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 2H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 2_Exist Conditions.cdr5 (13)
147 (609)
2 (5) 3 (21) 0 (1) 4 (7) (184) 9 (0) 0 (17) 2 (18) 10
(347) 279
(3) 10
72 (381)
4 (19)
78 (417) 18 (50) 368 (421) 96 (248) (124) 25 (468) 384 (299) 247 (19) 12
(8) 4
(61) 26 A/A(A/C)B (C)6 (4)
153 (810) 1 (7) 1 (9) (1) 12
(554) 335 A/A(A/D)37 (195)LEGENDXX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- Signalized Intersection- Side-Street Stop Control Intersection- Level of Service - A.M. Peak (P.M. Peak) B (C)City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 26
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 5
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
The proposed redevelopment is located in the southeast quadrant of 36th Street and Park Center
Boulevard. Currently, the site is occupied by a 36,000 square-foot office building. The proposed
redevelopment consists of removing the existing office building, constructing a 192-unit
apartment building, and shifting the site access approximately 70 feet to south (220 feet from
36th Street). The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3.
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The proposed redevelopment will be completed by year 2012. Therefore, traffic forecasts were
developed for year 2013 (one year after construction). Existing traffic volumes generated from
the site were subtracted from the roadway network to account for the removal of the existing
land use. Based on existing area growth patterns and historical average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes, an annual growth rate of one percent was applied to the existing peak hour volumes to
develop year 2013 background traffic forecasts. To determine the trip generation for the
proposed redevelopment, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition was used. In addition,
trip generation estimates were developed for previously proposed land uses identified in the
Parkwood Shores Senior Cooperative traffic analysis completed by RLK Inc. in June 2005. Trip
generation estimates for the proposed redevelopment and previously proposed land use scenarios
are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Trips P.M. Trips Daily In Trips Out Trips In Trips Out Trips
Apartment (220) 192 Units 20 78 80 43 1,287
Previously Proposed Land Use Scenarios(For comparison purposes, not assumed)
Office (710)* 36,000 SF 49 7 15 43 396
Senior Condos (252)* 150 Units 7 13 14 10 522
High Rise Condos (232)* 150 Units 10 41 35 22 627
* Indicates trip generation estimates are based off estimates identified in the Parkwood Shores
Senior Cooperative traffic analysis completed by RLK in June 2005.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed redevelopment of 192 apartment units will generate more
traffic than the three previously proposed land uses. During the p.m. peak hour, the proposed
land use will generate approximately twice the amount of trips when compared to the office and
high rise condominium land uses.
The directional trip distribution, shown in Figure 4, for the proposed development is based on
existing travel patterns and regional daily traffic volumes. To provide the most conservative trip
generation estimate, no reductions were applied for multi-modal transit users or travel demand
management. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed
redevelopment for year 2013 build conditions are shown in Figure 5.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 27
NORTH
North00107329December 2010Site PlanPark Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 3H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 3_Site Plan.cdrCity Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 28
NORTH
North00107329December 2010Directional DistributionPark Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 4H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 4_Directional Distribution.cdr55%25%20%City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 29
NORTH
North00107329December 2010Year 2013 Build ConditionsPark Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 5H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 2_Exist Conditions.cdr89 (402)
4 (20)
112 (447) 19 (52) 379 (434) 100 (276) (128) 26 (482) 396 (351) 257 (20) 12
(8) 4
(63) 27 A/A(A/C)B (C)4 (16)
157 (835) 48 (34) 12 (9) (64) 16
(571) 345
5 (13)
149 (639)
2 (5) 3 (22) 0 (1) 4 (7) (190) 9 (0) 0 (18) 2 (19) 10
(357) 298
(3) 10 A/A(A/F)39 (201)LEGENDXX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- Signalized Intersection- Side-Street Stop Control Intersection- Level of Service - A.M. Peak (P.M. Peak) B (C)City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 30
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 9
YEAR 2013 BUILD CONDITIONS
To determine how well the existing roadway network and proposed site access will
accommodate year 2013 build traffic forecasts, an operations analysis was conducted during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Results of the year 2013 build operations analysis shown in Table 3
indicate that all key intersections will operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout, signal timing, and proposed site
access. However, eastbound motorists at the Park Center Boulevard and Target/senior living
access intersection will experience heavy delays during the p.m. peak hour. The eastbound
approach will experience delays of 55 seconds per vehicle with a 95th percentile queue of
270 feet.
Similar to existing conditions, some minor queuing was identified at the intersection of 36th
Street and Park Center Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile queue for the
northbound left-turn movement was calculated at 200 feet which exceeds the available storage
(150 feet) provided between 36th Street and the existing site access. However, since the
proposed site access is located approximately 220 feet away from 36th Street, the impacts are
expected to be minimal. It should be noted that since the proposed redevelopment will be a
residential use, a majority of the site traffic during the p.m. peak hour will be in-bound to the
site. This increases the potential for safety issues to develop on southbound Park Center
Boulevard at the proposed site access. Since no southbound left-turn lane will be provided, there
is the potential for conflicts between southbound left-turning and through vehicles.
The proposed site access location does not currently meet access spacing guidelines for full-
access intersections, which is 300 feet. As the site access is currently proposed, the access
spacing to 36th Street and the Target/Senior Living Access is approximately 220 feet and 200
feet, respectively. Although the proposed access will operate acceptably, the close access spacing
increases the likelihood of safety issues.
The eastbound and westbound left-turn queues on 36th Street at Park Center Boulevard will
continue to occasionally exceed the available storage capacity and spill back into the through
lanes. This is mainly due to the fact that both of the existing turn lanes are less than 150 feet in
length due to the adjacent intersection spacing along 36th Street. It is important to note that these
queues will not significantly impact intersection operations and will not spill back into adjacent
intersections.
Table 3
Year 2013 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
36th Street and Park Center Boulevard B C
Park Center Boulevard and Existing Site Access * A/A A/C
Park Center Boulevard and Target/Senior Living Access * A/A A/F
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is shown
followed by the worst approach LOS.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 31
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 10
To address the access spacing guidelines and potential safety issues, a concept layout was
developed that displays a potential access consolidation alternative. The concept consists of
consolidating the four existing access driveways south of 36th Street into one full-access
intersection. This potential intersection will be located near the current right-in only access to
Target. Benefits of this concept consist of increasing vehicle storage for the northbound approach
at the 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard intersection and improving sight distance for
vehicles accessing the area developments from Park Center Boulevard south. Details of this
potential access consolidation concept are shown in Figure 6.
To determine the impacts that the potential access consolidation will have on the overall roadway
network, a detailed traffic operations analysis was completed. Results of the year 2013 build
operations analysis (with access consolidation) shown in Table 4 indicate that all key
intersections will operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. Although the proposed Park Center Boulevard and Target/senior living/site access
intersection will operate at LOS C during the p.m. peak hour, motorists on the eastbound
approach will experience delays of 150 seconds per vehicle with a 95th percentile queue of
415 feet. Other queuing issues identified under year 2013 build conditions at the 36th Street and
Park Center Boulevard intersection are not expected to be impacted by the access consolidation.
Table 4
Year 2013 Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis – with Access Consolidation
Level of Service Results
Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
36th Street and Park Center Boulevard B C
Park Center Boulevard and Target/Senior Living/Site Access * A/A (A) C/F (A)
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is shown
followed by the worst approach LOS. LOS shown in parentheses assumes the intersection is
controlled by a traffic signal.
To address the significant side-street delays and queuing issues at the Park Center Boulevard and
Target/senior living/site access intersection, installation of a traffic signal is recommended. A
signal warrant analysis was completed for this potential intersection. Based on year 2013 build
p.m. peak hour volumes, the intersection will satisfy the peak hour warrant. Results of an
operations analysis indicate that the proposed intersection will operate at LOS A during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours with traffic signal control. Year 2013 build conditions traffic volumes,
proposed traffic control and intersection geometry are shown in Figure 7.
SITE ACCESS REVIEW
Based on a review of the proposed site plan shown in Figure 3, the first internal intersection to
the site is approximately 60 feet from Park Center Boulevard. This introduces a driver decision
point immediately as they enter the site. Maximizing this distance is ideal to minimize the
potential for driver confusion. The access consolidation concept shown in Figure 6, could
connect to the proposed site without any significant changes to the internal roadways to the
proposed site and address this issue.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 32
NORTH
North00107329December 2010Potential Access Consolidation LayoutPark Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 6H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 6_Layout.cdrLEGEND- Pavement- Raised Median- Grass/LandscapingCity Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 33
NORTH
NorthB (C)9 (29)
145 (623)
2 (5) 51 (56) 0 (1) 16 (16) (190) 9 (0) 0 (18) 2 (83) 26
(348) 286
(204) 49 LEGENDXX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- Signalized Intersection- Level of Service - A.M. Peak (P.M. Peak) B (C)89 (402)
4 (20)
112 (447) 19 (52) 379 (434) 100 (276) (128) 26 (482) 396 (351) 257 (20) 12
(8) 4
(63) 27 A (A)00107329December 2010Year 2013 Build Conditions with Access Consolidation and Recommended Improvements Park Summit Redevelopment Traffic StudyCity of St. Louis Park Figure 7H:\Projects\7329\TS\Figures\Fig 6_Layout.cdrCity Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 34
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 13
Key features of the access consolidation concept include reducing the amount of access points on
Park Center Boulevard from four to two, increasing vehicle storage for the northbound approach
at the 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard intersection and improving sight distance for
vehicles accessing the area developments from Park Center Boulevard south. A number of
studies have demonstrated a relationship between the number of access points and crashes
including, FHWA Access Research Report No. FHWA-RD-91-044. Therefore, to improve the
overall operations and safety along Park Center Boulevard, consolidating access is
recommended.
Based on the proposed site plan, there is a proposed sidewalk connection from the main entrance
to the existing multi-purpose trail located along the south side of the site. This sidewalk will
allow good connectivity to other adjacent pedestrian and bicycle facilities. However, based on
the potential access consolidation, the existing mid-block crosswalk located along Park Center
Boulevard should be moved. Since the operations analysis indicates a traffic signal would need
to be installed at the consolidated access location to provide acceptable operations, the existing
crosswalk should be moved to the new consolidated access. This will provide a safer controlled
crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Park Center Boulevard. Proper signing will need
to be installed at the multi-purpose trail crossing with the internal roadway to minimize conflicts.
The conflicts at this location are expected to be minimal.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
Results of the existing operations analysis indicate that all key intersections currently operate
at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with existing
signal timing and geometric layout. The northbound left-turn queue at the 36th Street and
Park Center Boulevard intersection occasionally (approximately five percent of the p.m. peak
hour) extends into the site access intersection, potentially blocking southbound motorists
from accessing the site.
Trip generation estimates indicate that the proposed 192 unit apartment development will
generate 1,287 trips daily, 98 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 123 trips during the p.m.
peak hour.
Results of the year 2013 build operations analysis indicate all key intersections will operate
at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the
existing geometric layout, signal timing, and proposed site access.
o However, eastbound motorists at the Park Center Boulevard and Target/senior living
access intersection will experience heavy delays during the p.m. peak hour. The
eastbound approach will experience delays of 55 seconds per vehicle with a 95th
percentile queue of 270 feet.
o The proposed site access location does not currently meet access spacing guidelines for
full-access intersections, which is 300 feet. As the site access is currently proposed, the
access spacing to 36th Street and the Target/Senior Living Access is approximately 220
feet and 200 feet, respectively. Although the proposed access will operate acceptably, the
close access spacing increases the likelihood of safety issues.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 35
Adam Fulton January 7, 2011
City of St. Louis Park Page 14
To address the access spacing guidelines and potential safety issues under year 2013 Build
conditions, including the significant side-street delays at the Target/senior living/site access,
the consolidated access concept including the installation of a new traffic signal is
recommended.
o Results of the 2013 operations analysis with access consolidation indicate that the
proposed intersection will operate at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the
recommended traffic signal control.
Based on the potential access consolidation, the existing mid-block crosswalk located along
Park Center Boulevard should be relocated. The operations analysis indicates a traffic signal
needs to be installed at the consolidated access location to provide acceptable operations.
The existing crosswalk should be relocated to the new consolidated access to provide a safer
pedestrian and bicyclist crossing along Park Center Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 36
Lansing Melbourne Group LLC
office 321.727.9910
fax 321.727.9916
Technical Memorandum
To: Robert Bistry, HOK
From: Christian R. Luz, PE, AICP, Lansing Melbourne Group LLC
Date: March 30, 2011
Re: Park Summit PUD Parking Evaluation
Lansing Melbourne Group LLC (LMG) has been retained by HOK to evaluate the parking needs for
Park Summit Condominiums, a planned unit development (PUD) residential campus located in St.
Louis Park, MN (the City). SilverCrest Properties LLC (SilverCrest) was the developer of the PUD
approved in February 2004 and constructed the first two residential buildings. EJ Plesko &
Associates is the current land owner and developer of the final component of the PUD as discussed
herein.
EJ Plasko & Associates has proposed an amendment to the existing February 2004 PUD resolution
to replace the final building component, a senior condominium residential tower with a market
rate, non‐age restricted apartment building. This memorandum evaluates the change in parking
needs associated with the proposed amendment to the existing PUD. The following provides a
brief overview of the previously approved PUD, changes associated with the proposed amendment
and the resultant impact on parking.
February 2004 PUD Resolution
The PUD that was previously approved by resolution in February 2004, included three residential
buildings consisting of:
Lot 1 ‐ Park Summit Senior Condominiums ‐ a third proposed building was planned as part
of the PUD and included a 150 unit, 14‐story, senior condominium tower with 225 surface
and underground parking spaces. This building was not constructed.
Lot 2 ‐ Parkshore Assisted Living – a 91 unit, 4‐story, assisted living residential facility for
seniors with 24 surface parking spaces. This building is constructed and occupied.
Lot 3 ‐ Parkshore Senior Condominiums – a 207 unit, 14‐story, senior housing residential
tower with a total of 236 surface and underground parking spaces located in a separate
parking facility. This building is constructed and occupied.
As part of the resolution, the PUD incorporated a 10 percent reduction in the parking required for
Park Summit Senior Condominiums (Lot 1). As shown in Table 1, the two existing building,
Parkshore Assisted Living (Lot 2) and Parkshore Condominiums (Lot 3) provide 260 surface and
underground parking spaces. The PUD requirements for residential housing required 171 parking
spaces and therefore there is a surplus of 89 parking spaces. The residential parking requirement
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 37
for the third building, Park Summit Senior Condominiums, was 218 spaces, while 225 spaces were
proposed increasing the surplus in parking supply to 96 spaces. As mentioned, the City approved a
reduction in parking requirements for the Park Summit Senior Condominiums of 10 percent which
was incorporated into the parking requirements.
Table 1 – February 2004 Approved PUD
The following is a description of the proposed change in the PUD as it relates to the parking needs.
Building Status Units
Parking
Req’d
Surface Parking
Provided
Underground
Parking Provided
Total Parking
Provided
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Parkshore
Assisted Living Built 91 46 24 ‐ 24 (22)
Parkshore
Senior Condos Built 207 125 97 139 236 111
Total Built 298 171 121 139 260 89
Park Summit
Senior Condos Planned 150 218 15 210 225 7
Total n/a 192 389 136 349 485 96
Proposed PUD Amendment
EJ Plesko & Associates has proposed an amendment to the approved PUD that replaces the Park
Summit Senior Condominiums and associated 236 parking spaces with 192 non‐age restricted,
market rate apartments plus 256 surface and underground parking spaces. The amendment refers
to the proposed building as Park Summit Apartments. The City’s code has specific parking
requirements for residential housing as it relates to the number of bedrooms included in each
dwelling unit. Table 2 illustrates the parking requirements for Park Summit Apartments.
Table 2 – Park Summit Apartments and PUD Parking Requirements
Park Summit
Apartments
Number of
Units
Parking
Requirements
Number of
Spaces Required
Number of
Spaces Provided
Surplus/
(Deficit)
One Bedroom
Units 114 1.0 space per unit 114 ‐ ‐
Two Bedroom
Units 78 2.0 spaces per unit 156 ‐ ‐
Total 192 n/a 270 256 (14)
As shown in Table 2, the parking supply calculated under the PUD parking requirements for Park
Summit Apartments is 270 spaces. Table 2 also indicates the number of parking spaces proposed as
part of the Park Summit Apartments as 256 spaces, resulting in a shortfall of 14 spaces. However, if
the 10 percent reduction is applied to the parking requirement, the requirement is reduced by 27
spaces from 270 to 243 spaces. Since the Park Summit Apartments include 256 spaces, a surplus of
13 spaces results.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 38
Table 3 illustrates the total parking supply for the entire PUD as required by code and as proposed
by EJ Plesko & Associates in the amended PUD.
Table 3 – Proposed PUD and Parking Needs
Building Units
Parking
Required
Total Parking
Provided
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Total Parking
Required w/
Reduction
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Parkshore
Assisted Living 91 46 24 (22) 46 (22)
Parkshore
Senior Condos 207 125 236 111 125 111
Park Summit
Apartments 192 270 256 (14) 243 13
Grand Total 490 441 516 75 414 102
The first five columns of Table 3 lists the Lot, number of dwelling units, number of parking spaces
required without the 10 percent reduction, the total parking provided and the resultant surplus of
deficit exists. The last two columns list the parking required after incorporating the 10 percent
reduction and the surplus or deficit that results.
Analysis of Parking Needs
As mentioned previously and listed in Table 1, the Parkshore Assisted Living facility development
includes a 24 space surface parking lot, although 46 spaces were required by code. This resulted in
a shortfall of 22 spaces if the building needs were evaluated as a stand‐alone development.
The Parkshore Senior Condominium development includes a 97 space surface parking lot plus 139
spaces located in an underground parking facility for a total of 236 spaces, although 125 spaces
were required. This resulted in a surplus of 111 parking spaces for Parkshore Senior Condominiums
if evaluated as a stand‐alone development.
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the proposed Park Summit Apartments would typically require 270
spaces by code as a stand alone development. However, the parking requirement drops to 243
spaces after applying the 10 percent reduction. This results in a surplus of 13 spaces.
As noted by both City Planning staff and SilverCrest, the parking needs for the first two residential
components, Parkshore Assisted Living facility and Parkshore Senior Condominiums have been
satisfied by the existing parking supply. In fact, based on discussion with SilverCrest, the existing
parking supply is well underutilized in the Parkshore Senior Condominium parking facility, which
could accommodate additional parking demand associated with the Park Summit Apartments.
When taken as a whole, the proposed amended PUD includes 516 parking spaces and surpasses the
parking requirement of 414 spaces (with the reduction for Park Summit Apartments) resulting in a
surplus of 102 spaces. Furthermore, the proposed PUD parking plan exceeds the parking
requirement even without the 10 percent reduction by 75 spaces.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 39
Industry Standards
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) studies and publishes data related to parking
generation for specific land uses in Parking Generation, 4th edition, 2010. The ITE has published
parking data for high‐rise (five or more floors) apartment buildings located in the central city but
not in the downtown (ITE Land Use Code 222) that would be similar in character to the Park
Summit Apartments. The ITE data indicates a peak parking demand of 1.37 vehicles per dwelling
unit during the evening and early morning hours when tenants are at home. Furthermore, the 85th
percentile listed by ITE for high‐rise apartments is 1.52 vehicles per dwelling unit.
ITE also publishes data that was collected assisted living facilities and senior housing. Data
collected from 13 studies of assisted living facilities averaging 82 units in size (ITE Land Use 254)
indicate a peak parking demand (11:00 am) of 0.41 spaces per dwelling unit with an 85th percentile
parking demand at 0.54 spaces per dwelling unit. The ITE Parking Generation manual also lists
parking data collected for senior housing (ITE Land Use 252). The data indicates the parking
demand is 0.59 spaces per dwelling unit during the average peak period (overnight) with an 85th
percentile demand of 0.66 spaces per dwelling unit.
Table 4 illustrates a comparison of the parking needs as provided by ITE and the City of St. Louis
Park.
Table 4 – Industry Standards
Residential type
ITE Data
(Spaces per DU)
ITE Parking
Spaces
City of St. Louis Park
PUD Requirements
Parkshore Assisted
Living 0.41 37 46
Parkshore Senior
Housing 0.59 122 125
Park Summit
Apartments 1.37 263 243
Total n/a 422 414
The National Parking Association Parking Consultants Council provides data on acceptable walking
distances from destination to parking in Dimensions of Parking. Figure 12‐1, page 123 lists various
walking and driving maximums as they relate to a level of service, i.e. the longer the distance, the
lower the level of service. The level of service is graded from level of service A, the most desirable
or shortest relative distance, to level of service D, the least desirable level of service and longest
relative distance. Figure 21‐1 lists a walking distance of 400 feet as level of service A. The parking
spaces located in the Parkshore senior housing paring facility are between 400 and 450 feet from
the Park Summit Apartments parking lot. Therefore, the level of service relative to the walking
distance ranges from level of service A (400 feet or less) to level of service B (800 feet or less). This
is a guideline for typical garage walking distances that is not residential specific.
Finally, within the next five to eight years, there is an extension of the light rail system programmed
that will result in two stops within four blocks of the site. When this extension is in‐place, the Park
Summit campus will be less dependent on driving which could result in a decrease in parking
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 40
Technical Memorandum
March 30, 2011
5
demand associated with the apartments. This further supports the 10 percent reduction in parking
requirements for the Park Summit Apartment.
Conclusion
Because the Park Summit amended PUD is proposed in a campus‐like setting with cross parking
easements and pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and access, the parking supply can be
effectively shared between buildings. The parking requirements for the Park Summit Apartments
are exceeded with the allowance of a 10 percent reduction. Even without the reduction in parking
spaces for the park Summit Apartments, the overall parking supply proposed as part of the
amended PUD exceeds the parking required for the PUD.
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 41
PARK SUMMIT APARTMENT ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNEAPOLIS1 VEHICULAR DROP-OFF2 ENTRY COURT SEATING AREA3 RAINGARDEN4 OUTDOOR DINING TABLES5 STAIRS + RAMP TO TERRACE 6 SECRET GARDEN7 MULTI-USE LAWN8 ROOFTOP FIREBAR9 ROOFTOP DINING10 PING-PONG11 ROOFTOP PLANTING BANDS12 PLANTERS13 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL + TURF14 WOLFE PARK TRAIL SIGN15 PARK SUMMIT APARTMENTS SIGNAGE16 LOADING ACCESS17 PARKING ACCESS18 BIKE RACKS 12435678101191213140 4 20 40’E.J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES MAY 11, 2011 312151617181813City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 42
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 43
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 44
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 45
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 46
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 47
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 48
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 49
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 50
City Council Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUDPage 51
Meeting Date: May 16, 2011
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:
Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff to prepare draft freight rail policy update.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City Council has set as its objective the adoption of an updated freight rail policy resolution
on May 31st.
The focus of this week’s freight rail study session discussion is to provide direction to staff on
what the key elements of an updated freight rail policy should be. Staff will then craft a draft
policy statement for City Council consideration at the May 23rd study session.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 9th Study Session the City Council discussed key findings from SEH Technical
Memorandum #4; and, key themes expressed at the Listening Sessions on April 27th and 28th and
in written comments submitted to the City. At the May 9th meeting City Council members also
asked for additional information on a number of topics. Staff, the City Attorney and our railroad
consultants are preparing responses to the City Council’s questions and we will provide this
information as it becomes available.
Framework for Freight Rail Policy Update
An updated freight rail policy could include many elements. A starting point for an updated
policy is the current policy as established by Resolution 10-070 in July, 2010 (see attached).
This policy was prepared prior to the start of the MNS Rail Study and prior to the studies
prepared by consultants working for Hennepin County/MNDOT and the City. The policy update
will benefit from the information provided by all of these studies.
The fundamental question for updating the City’s freight rail policy statement is:
Based on the various studies, analysis, and public process undertaken since last July,
are the conditions under which rerouting freight trains to the MNS as established in
Resolution 10-070 still applicable; and, have they been met?
Are the 2010 conditions still applicable and have they been met?
The July, 2010 freight rail resolution included six conditions under which the City would not
oppose rerouting freight rail from Kenilworth to St. Louis Park (MN&S route). Of the six
conditions, five address mitigation and/or potential improvements in St. Louis Park.
The first condition in the resolution presents a more basic question. It says the City will only
accept the MNS route if “It is established through a thorough and careful analysis that no other
viable route exists”. Much of the analysis and study undertaken since July has been dedicated to
answering this question from a physical and engineering perspective. The stakeholders involved
Special Study Session Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy
in addressing the freight rail routing question have differing opinions about whether a viable
alternative to the MNS route exists or not. The work done on behalf of the City by SEH supports
the argument that from a physical and engineering perspective, a viable alternative does exist via
co-locating freight rail and LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor. The SEH analysis does point out
that the co-location alternative is not without its challenges. For example, to allow a co-location
of freight rail and LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor would require the partial relocation of the
regional trail and the likely acquisition of property. The analysis undertaken by SEH did not
address the political viability of co-locating freight rail and LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor or
its impact on the planning of the SWLRT project.
The other five conditions in Resolution 10-070 identify specific mitigation or improvements that
would be necessary as conditions to the City agreeing to a freight rail reroute. Mitigation has
been discussed as a part of Hennepin County’s MNS Study/EAW and PMT process. The EAW
being prepared as part of the MNS Study will identify the proposed measures to be undertaken to
mitigate environmental impacts associated with a freight rail reroute. Based on information that
has been supplied to the City by the County, it does not appear all of the mitigation or
improvement measures identified in Resolution 10-070 are being proposed. At some point,
perhaps as a part of the EAW public comment period, it would be in the City’s best interest to
identify again and in greater detail the mitigation measures it believes would be needed.
Mitigation measures should be identified for both the potential reroute alternatives. There are
mitigation measures that the City would want whether Kenilworth or MNS were to become the
permanent route for TC&W freight trains.
Mitigation
The five mitigation and freight rail improvement related conditions identified in the July 2010
freight rail resolution would seem to be an appropriate beginning for creating an updated freight
rail mitigation list. In some cases it would be appropriate to refine and update some of the
specific mitigation measures previously identified. The analysis done by the consultants
working on freight rail issues over the past year will serve as a source of information for refining
the mitigation measures listed previously. It may be appropriate to add new items too. The five
items in the July 2010 resolution are,
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way
and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
5. 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 May 16, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy
SEH Technical Memorandum #4 listed potential mitigation measures. This list is being updated
and cost estimates added. A list of mitigation items for the Kenilworth Corridor is also being
created. These materials will be available for City Council consideration Monday evening.
MN&S Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
At this time the MN&S Freight Rail Study EAW is expected to be published May 16th. The 30
day official comment period would start once the EAW is published and end in mid-June. June
8th has been identified as the tentative date for an Open House for the EAW. Once the EAW is
published and the Open House meeting date is confirmed, more specific information on the
meeting will be available. Staff and SEH are preparing to provide possible comments on the
EAW for the City Council’s consideration at the earliest possible date.
What is the schedule after the May 16 meeting?
May 23rd Council Study Session
Continued policy discussion on freight rail and MN&S EAW (Environmental
Assessment Worksheet). Review a draft policy.
May 31st Special City Council Meeting
Adopt a resolution updating the freight rail policy .
Date to be determined: Comments for submission on MN&S EAW will be discussed and
approved depending upon the EAW publication date.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
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. It is also related to the broader Vision elements
about the variety of transportation modes, sidewalk & trails and environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Resolution 10–070 and 10-071 (regarding rail)
Materials distributed Monday night will include: Updated mitigation lists.
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 May 16, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy Page 4
Special Study Session Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy Page 5
Special Study Session Meeting of May 16, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy Page 6