HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/12/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 19, 2011
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Westwood Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session
Closed meeting with the City Attorney to discuss pending litigation relating to the City's
appeal of MnDOT's negative declaration regarding the need for an Environmental Impact
Statement for the MN&S Freight Rail Relocation Project.
3. Adjournment
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes December 5, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a
special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and
approval of the 2012 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2012.
7b. Approve Fund Closings
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund closings.
7c. Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving the Sixth Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority and Union Land II LLC, Medley Row, LLC, Webster Group, LLC and
Camerata LLC.
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms,
covenants, and directions for the issuance of its Tax Increment Revenue Notes to
Webster Group, LLC and Medley Row, LLC totaling $1,020,000.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
Meeting of December 19, 2011
City Council Agenda
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 of November 21, 2011
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 28, 2011
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2011
3d. Closed Executive Session Meeting Minutes of December 12, 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 items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items
from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a
Landscaping Easement (Case No. 11-33-VAC)
Recommended Action:
• Mayor to close public hearing.
• Motion to Adopt the First Reading of an Ordinance vacating a landscaping easement
for the Ellipse II on Excelsior redevelopment and set the Second Reading of
Ordinance for January 17, 2009.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving the preliminary plat and subdivision
variance for ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR, subject to conditions.
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving the rear yard and side yard setback variances
for e2, subject to conditions.
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving the preliminary planned unit development
(PUD) for e2, subject to conditions.
Meeting of December 19, 2011
City Council Agenda
8b. Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt the Second Reading of an Ordinance
amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of 3901 and 3921 Excelsior
Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to General Commercial (C-2),
approve the summary ordinance and authorize for publication.
8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt First Reading of an ordinance amending
Chapter 36-33 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to variances from the
Zoning Ordinance and set second reading for January 3, 2012
8d. Adoption of 2012 Budgets, 2012 Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, 2012 – 2016
Capital Improvement Plan and 2012 Utility Rates
Recommended Action:
Ÿ Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2012 Budgets and authorizing the 2012
Final Property Tax Levy.
Ÿ Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2012 Final HRA Levy.
Ÿ Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)
Ÿ Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2012 Utility Rates.
8e. 2012 Employee Compensation
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt a Resolution confirming a 2% general
increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/12; approving the City Manager’s salary
for 2012, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and
increasing performance program pay by 2% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2012
8f. Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt a Resolution providing for formal acceptance
of the annual City Manager evaluation.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of December 19, 2011
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
clarifying the administrative appeal process for rental housing licensing
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers, operating transfers, and fund closings
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing “10 Minute Parking” restrictions on the 6000 block of 37th
Street West
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 2530 Lynn Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN, P.I.D. 31-029-24-13-0072
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4069 Vernon Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN, P.I.D. 07-028-24-23-0114
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2904 Virginia Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0070
4g. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $24,693
for the Soil Removal and Disposal as part of the MSC Renovation Project 2008-1900
4h. Reappoint Commissioners as city representatives to various Boards and Commissions
with terms expiring 12/31/2014
4i. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 5, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Paul Omodt.
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 November 21, 2011
President Finkelstein requested that the third line of the sixth paragraph on page 3 be
revised to state “another condominium development would not fit in this neighborhood
and meet the needs of…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
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 Jacobs, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period October 8, 2011 through November 25, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Request by the EDA for the City Council to Call a Public Hearing to
Consider Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
EDA Resolution No. 11-18
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2011
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that the EDA is being asked to provide
Anderson-KM Builders with up to $300,000 to facilitate construction of an approximate
21,000 square foot, $4.3 million office building at 3340 Republic Avenue. He stated that
a new TIF District encompassing the subject property would be created and this TIF
District would generate $300,000 over the nine-year term of the District. He noted the
City Council is required to hold a public hearing in order to create a TIF District;
however, the setting of a public hearing does not commit the EDA or the City to any level
of TIF assistance but simply enables the City to hold a public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-18 Requesting the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park Call
for a Public Hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and the Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
(an Economic Development District).
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 25, 2011 through December
9, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:49:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
27.70DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A POSTAGECITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
158.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
185.70
95.00HARD COAT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
47.50WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
855.00HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,102.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
142.50AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,242.50
141.00TH 7-LOUISIANA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
141.00
594.49DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
594.49
2,261.25HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
2,466.00HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICES
247.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
4,974.75
1,113.177015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
1,113.17
222.93DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
222.93
Report Totals 9,474.54
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting Date: December 19, 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: Special Meeting
TITLE:
2012 Final HRA Levy Certification.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2012 Final HRA Levy
and Budget for fiscal year 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA desire to levy the maximum percentage allowable by law of 0.0185% of taxable
market value collectible in 2012 for purposes of funding infrastructure improvements in
redeveloping areas of the City?
BACKGROUND:
On September 6, 2011, the EDA adopted a Preliminary HRA Levy of $983,574. The purpose of
this levy is to assist in funding future improvements to infrastructure in redeveloping areas. In
the past, this fund has paid for infrastructure planning and engineering expenses and legislative
and lobbying costs related to securing transportation funding for projects in St. Louis Park. For
2012, legislative and lobbying expenses will be paid from the Development Fund. There are no
capital expenditures budgeted for 2012; however, $3,410,542 in capital expenditures are
projected for 2013-2015. These expenditures are subject to change and, if anything, will
increase. These projected expenditures are for Hwy 7 & Louisiana, as well as the Wooddale Ave
Reconstruction which runs from Hwy 7 south to Hwy 100. The City Council and EDA first
adopted the HRA Levy for 2002.
The maximum allowable HRA levy is based on a percentage of the previous year’s taxable
market value in the City. For the 2012 levy, the percentage is 0.0185%. Based on the taxable
market value of the City of $5,316,671,000, staff has calculated the maximum Final HRA Levy
for 2012 to be $983,574. This is a $45,314 decrease, or approximately 4.41% from 2011 to 2012
in the potential maximum allowable HRA levy. The decrease is a result of a lower taxable
market value in the City for 2012. As indicated in the resolution, the EDA is asked to authorize
the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is
required before certification.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly related to
transportation needs, it is recommended that the EDA adopt the resolution authorizing the
proposed HRA levy.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This levy supports St. Louis Park being a connected and engaged community through meeting
the needs of current and future infrastructure needs.
Attachments: Resolution
2012 HRA Levy Proposed Budget
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2012
AND APPROVAL OF THE EDA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon this budget, the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority:
1. The special benefit tax levy budget of $983,574 for the operations of the Authority in
fiscal year 2012, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all
respects approved, by the Authority for certification of the tax levy under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 275.07.
2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file a budget with the City
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6.
3. The special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision
6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of taxable market
value in City of St. Louis Park,
4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes in 2012.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification
Passed and duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority this 19th day of December, 2011.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 19, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification
HRA Levy
2012 Budget
December 19, 2011
2010 2011 2012
Actual Budget Proposed Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy 1,003,783$ 1,028,888$ 983,574$
Market Value Homestead Credit 31,025 27,000 -
Interest Income 55,305 100,000 70,000
Total Revenue 1,090,113$ 1,155,888$ 1,053,574$
Expenditures:
Infrastructure Projects -$ 20,000$ -$
Legislative Lobbying Services 52,532 36,000 -
Total Expenditures 52,532$ 56,000$ -$
Net Transfers (971,687)$ -$ -$
Beginning Fund Balance 5,037,002$ 5,102,896$ 6,202,784$
Net Change in Fund Balance 65,894$ 1,099,888$ 1,053,574$
Ending Fund Balance 5,102,896$ 6,202,784$ 7,256,358$
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7b
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:
Approve Fund Closings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund closings.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Economic Development Authority agree with the staff recommendation to close out
certain funds?
BACKGROUND:
Fund Closings
At the end of each year, staff determines if there are any funds which are no longer necessary
and should be closed. Three EDA funds have been identified that can be closed at the end of
2011.
Final payment was made on February 1, 2011, on the 2009A Tax Increment Refunding Bonds.
The Hoigaard Village 2006 and 2007 Taxable TIF Notes were refinanced in October 2010 by the
2010A TIF Revenue Bonds and the 2010B TIF Revenue Note. The Trunk Highway 7 Tax
Increment District will decertify on December 31, 2011, and can be closed thereafter.
Staff recommends that the Economic Development Authority take formal action to close the
following funds after December 31, 2011:
Fund Number Name
3835 2009A GOTI Refunding Bonds
3880 2006-07 Hoigaard Village TIF Notes
4855 Trunk Highway 7 TIF District
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The action recommended will reduce the amount of required financial reporting in future years.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Fund Closings
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Approve Fund Closings Page 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND CLOSINGS
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park has one tax
increment district that will decertify in 2011 and two debt service funds that are no longer
active; and
WHEREAS, these funds are no longer necessary to the operation of the Economic
Development Authority;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority:
Approval is hereby given to the Controller to close the following funds as shown.
Fund Number Name
3835 2009A GOTI Refunding Bonds
3880 2006-07 Hoigaard Village TIF Notes
4855 Trunk Highway 7 TIF District
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 19, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution approving the Sixth Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Union Land II LLC, Medley Row, LLC, Webster Group, LLC and Camerata LLC.
• Motion to Adopt a Resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms,
covenants, and directions for the issuance of its Tax Increment Revenue Notes to Webster
Group, LLC and Medley Row, LLC totaling $1,020,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the revisions to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II, et al as
specified in the proposed Sixth Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
Hoigaard Village is a 9.6–acre redevelopment near the northwest quadrant of Highway 100 and
36th Street. The two largest components of the project, Harmony Vista (74 units and 25,000 SF of
commercial space); and the 220-unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common elements
(contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all complete
and fully leased. The smaller portions of the project: The Adagio (a 58-unit condominium
building) and Medley Row (22 for-sale town houses) have yet to be completed.
Proposed Revisions to Redevelopment Contract
As expressed at the November 14, 2011 Study Session, economic conditions over the past
several years and challenges related to project financing have held back completion of the
remaining portions of Hoigaard Village. Current and anticipated future conditions do not support
moving forward with owner-occupied condominiums and townhomes as previously planned.
However, Union Land II (“Redeveloper”) is prepared to proceed with the construction of the
final two elements if they can be market rate rental housing. The Adagio is now proposed to
consist of 100 market rate apartments and Medley Row is proposed as 22 market rate town
houses. At the November 14th Study Session, the EDA expressed a willingness to amend the
Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract to make this possible. Union Land II expects to begin
construction on both stages toward the end of the first quarter of 2012 and expects to complete
them by the end of 2013. In conformity with the original Hoigaard Village plans, both buildings
will be constructed in such a way as to allow them to be converted to for-sale housing when
market conditions are conducive to do so. Attached is a proposed Resolution of Approval for
EDA action and the proposed contract amendment. Below is additional discussion about the
project and a description of the amendment elements.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Conversion of Harmony Vista units from rental to for-sale
The Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II included a
requirement that the Redeveloper use its best efforts to sell the units within Harmony Vista and
report annually to the EDA regarding the status of its marketing efforts. The Redeveloper is
concerned that this provision could be construed in such a way that the EDA had the authority to
decide in any given year whether the Redeveloper could continue to lease the units within
Harmony Vista or be required to convert them back to for-sale units. The Redeveloper stated that
it needs to pledge Harmony Vista (along with The Camerata) as collateral to obtain financing for
The Adagio and Medley Row projects. The EDA’s requirement creates economic uncertainty for
the income stream from Harmony Vista and, as a result, the Redeveloper maintains it cannot
secure financing if the provision remains in place. The Redeveloper has requested that the EDA
remove this requirement and let the market dictate when the units are converted back to
condominiums for sale. As noted previously, it is in the Redeveloper’s financial interest to sell
the units within Harmony Vista and therefore the Redeveloper has the incentive to do so at the
earliest possibility. Given that, it seems reasonable to let the market determine when the
Harmony Vista units should be marketed for sale.
Adagio Unit Mix
At the November Study Session, concern was expressed about the mix of units within the
proposed Adagio building. The concern was that smaller unit sizes were not conducive to
families. The Redeveloper stated that that the majority of the units within The Adagio (58%)
were larger units (1 bedroom + den and 2 bedrooms) but also stated he would take another look
at the unit mix. The Redeveloper subsequently contacted Maxfield Research and asked it to
review its previous recommended unit mix within The Adagio.
Maxfield maintains that the market demand stemming from young people and seniors for
smaller-sized units is strong and should be sustainable for some time. Attached is Maxfield’s
letter to the Redeveloper outlining its rationale. Based upon its analysis of current market
demand for various apartment sizes, Maxfield revised its recommended unit mix for The Adagio
as follows:
Unit Types Unit Size Previous
Recommendation
Current
Recommendation
Difference
Studio 520 SF 3 10 +7
1 Bedroom 740 SF 39 36 -3
1 Bedroom + Den 880 SF 42 38 -4
2 Bedroom 1,070 SF 16 16 -
Total 100 100
Maxfield recommends maintaining the number of 2 bedroom units and suggests shifting a few of
the 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom + den units to studios. Overall the percentage of larger units is still
more than half (54%).
The unit mix for The Adagio is being designed in the context of the entire Hoigaard Village
project. Hoigaard Village is managed and marketed as a whole. The initial buildings were heavy
on larger, multi-bedroom units. The Adagio is designed to broaden the market appeal of the
project by including more 1 bedroom units. Within Harmony Vista 90% of the units are larger
units (1 bedroom + den and two bedroom units). Within The Camerata 72% are larger units.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Within the entire project (existing and proposed), 302 units or 73% of the 416 total units are
larger units. Thus, nearly three-quarters of the units within Hoigaard Village could accommodate
families should they wish to live there.
The appropriate mix of housing unit types for St. Louis Park as a whole is an important policy
question for the EDA/City Council to consider. Staff would suggest that the topic be discussed at
a future study session. The goal would be to establish basic housing policies to guide future
housing development decisions. The Community Vision, market conditions, changing
demographics and development opportunities would be key elements to consider in preparing an
effective policy.
Remaining TIF Note(s) to be Pay–As-You-Go
The proposed 6th Amendment also includes some technical changes to the form of the TIF Notes
that would be issued as the means of delivering the EDA’s remaining TIF assistance to the
Redeveloper. Currently the Redevelopment Contract anticipates the EDA/City issuing TIF
Notes suitable for sale to third parties in the financial markets. Given current market conditions,
this is unlikely to occur. The proposed amendment acknowledges this fact; and states that the
EDA and Redeveloper agree that two “pay-as-you-go” TIF Notes totaling $1,020,000 will be
issued as the vehicle for reimbursing the Redeveloper for the eligible expenses related to The
Adagio and Medley Row. This is the EDA’s preferred financing method as it is a simpler, less
complicated and less expensive means of providing the TIF assistance to the Redeveloper. This
streamlined approach was recommended by the EDA’s bond counsel and fiscal consultant
(Ehlers). The appropriate language has been incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Terms of Proposed Sixth Amendment
To formalize the proposed revisions discussed above, the parties have agreed to enter into a Sixth
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment. The proposed terms and conditions of
the Amendment are below.
1. The definition of “Minimum Improvements” is amended to:
Phase I, consisting of a mixed use building containing approximately 25,000
square feet of retail space and at least 74 units of residential condominiums (“Stage
1”)( otherwise known as Harmony Vista), and an apartment building containing at
least 100 units of rental housing ( “Stage 2”) (otherwise known as The Adagio);
Phase II, consisting of at least 22 rental or owner-occupied townhomes (“Stage
3”)(otherwise known as Medley Row) and at least 220 units of rental housing (
“Stage 4”)(otherwise known as The Camerata).
2. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence and complete
construction of the Minimum Improvements, in accordance with the following
schedule:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 4
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
REVISED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase/Stage Commencement
(Per 5th
Amend.)
Revised
Commencement
(Proposed)
Completion
(Per 5th
Amend.)
Revised
Completion
(Proposed)
Phase I/Stage 1
Harmony Vista
June 1, 2006
June 1, 2006
(No Change)
Feb 28, 2008
Feb 28, 2008
(No Change)
Phase I/Stage 2
The Adagio
October 1, 2011
July 1, 2012
December 31,
2012
December 31,
2013
Phase II/Stage 3
Medley Row
October 1, 2011
July 1, 2012
December 31,
2012
December 31,
2013
Phase II/Stage 4
The Camerata
July 1, 2007
July 1, 2007
(No Change)
Aug 30, 2008
Sept 1, 2008
3. The parties recognize that continued weakness in the market for owner-occupied
condominium units has substantially impaired the Redeveloper’s ability to sell residential
units in the Stage 1 Minimum Improvements (the “Stage 1 Residential Units”), or to
construct Stage 3 as owner-occupied townhomes. Accordingly, the City and EDA
recognize that the Redeveloper will (i) enter into lease agreements with third-party renters
for the Stage 1 Residential Units, and (ii) construct the Stage 3 townhomes in a manner that
Redeveloper believes will allow it to eventually sell such townhomes to owner-occupants,
but will market and lease the Stage 3 townhomes to third-party renters until such time as
Redeveloper concludes that the market for owner-occupied condominium units has
recovered and Redeveloper is able to actually sell such townhomes. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City and EDA expressly recognize that
nothing in this Agreement prohibits the Redeveloper from continuing to market the Stage 1
Residential Units as rental units or from marketing the Stage 3 townhomes as rental units.
Redeveloper agrees to endeavor to sell the Stage 1 Residential Units and the Stage 3
townhomes to owner-occupants at the earliest opportunity that Redeveloper determines in its
sole discretion that such sales are economically feasible.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is obligated to reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related to the Adagio
and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village once they are completed; and, the amount of
reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by these developments. Until
the Adagio and Medley Row project components are constructed they will not be contributing to
the tax increment available for reimbursement of the Redeveloper’s TIF-eligible expenses. It
should be noted that the Redeveloper already has incurred the expenses for which it is eligible
for reimbursement. The Redeveloper will have to continue to carry these costs until the
development is completed. Thus, the Redeveloper has every incentive to fully complete the
project sooner rather than later.
The proposed revisions to the Adagio and Medley Row project components within the Contract
as well as their respective construction extensions reflect the market reality relating to apartment
construction in the Twin Cities. The construction delay means that the Redeveloper’s
reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to Stages 2 and 3 has likewise been delayed.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 5
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Resolutions of Approval
Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
Letter from Maxfield Research
Hoigaard Village Unit Mix
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 6
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND UNION LAND II LLC,
MEDLEY ROW, LLC, WEBSTER GROUP, LLC, AND
CAMERATA, LLC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1791 (the “TIF Act”), made up of the area to be developed by Union Land II, LLC, Medley
Row, LLC, Webster Group, LLC, and Camerata, LLC (collectively, the “Redeveloper”) and certain
other property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”).
1.02. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of
July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto
dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009, and a Fifth
Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010 (the “Agreement”), whereunder the Authority
pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain costs
incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of four stages of minimum
improvements to the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.03. Due to delays in construction of the Minimum Improvements, continued
instability in the market for condominium units, and a weakened market for tax increment
revenue bonds, the parties propose to modify certain provisions of the Agreement by executing a
Sixth Amendment to the Agreement (the “Sixth Amendment”).
Section 2. Sixth Amendment Approved.
2.01. The Sixth Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by
such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Authority, the Sixth Amendment.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 7
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 19, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 8
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE
FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES TO
WEBSTER GROUP, LLC AND MEDLEY ROW, LLC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF
District") within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project.
Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and
pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best
interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Notes, Series 2012A (the
“Series 2012A Note”) and Series 2012B (the “Series 2012B Note”, and together with the Series
2012A Note, the "Notes") for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs of the
Project.
1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the
President and Executive Director to issue the Notes in accordance with the Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the Authority and Union Land II LLC, dated as of March 6, 2006, as
amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto
dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth
Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009, a Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October
18, 2010, and a Sixth Amendment thereto dated as of December 19, 2011 (as so amended, the
“Agreement”). All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement
unless the context requires otherwise.
(b) The Series 2012A Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of
$820,000 to Webster Group, LLC (“Webster”) in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by
Webster under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at
the rate of 4.0% per annum from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The
Series 2012A Note will be issued in the principal amount of Stage 2 Costs submitted and approved
in accordance with Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement. The Series 2012A Note is secured by Stage 2
Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Series 2012A Note herein. The
Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the
Series 2012A Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 9
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
(c) The Series 2012B Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of
$200,000 to Medley Row, LLC (“Medley Row”) in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred
by Medley Row under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear
interest at the rate of 4.0% per annum from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or
prepayment. The Series 2012B Note will be issued in the principal amount of Stage 3 Costs
submitted and approved in accordance with Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement. The Series 2012B
Note is secured by Stage 3 Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Series
2012B Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of
the date on which the Series 2012B Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 10
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $_____________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 2012
Date
Rate of Original Issue
4.0%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to [Webster Group, LLC/Medley Row, LLC]
or registered assigns (the "Owner"), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at
the rate of 4.0% per annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized
terms shall have the meanings provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
Authority and the Owner, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto
dated as of July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third
Amendment thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17,
2009, a Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010, and a Sixth Amendment thereto
dated as of December 19, 2011 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), unless the context requires
otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 2015 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2023 ("Payment Dates") in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 2015 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days of twelve 20-day months, and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 11
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
[Series 2012A Note:]
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to Stage 2 of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property
that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on
the Note.
[Series 2012B Note]
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to Stage 3 of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property
that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on
the Note.
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or
accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2023.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, within 30 days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default
is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the
Participation Amount as described in Section 7.5 of the Agreement, fifty percent of such
Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the
principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of
such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon
request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding
principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$_________________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and
administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the
"Resolution") duly adopted by the Authority on December 19, 2011, and pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 12
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the
Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation
of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the
Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available
Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note
or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and
to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 13
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Controller, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Controller
_________________________
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 14
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. Each Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
Each Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Notes shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Notes shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Controller to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of registration
and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Notes and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Notes.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of any Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Notes shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. Any Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person[s]
in whose name the Notes are at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner[s] of
the Notes, whether the Notes shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Notes and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 15
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of any Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of
and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Notes shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Notes
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
When the Notes have been so executed, each shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the
Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Series 2012A Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the form of Series 2012A Note,
and pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 2012B Note all Available
Tax Increment as defined in the form of the Series 2012B Note..
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Notes are no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain separate and special "Bond Funds" to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. The Authority irrevocably
agrees to appropriate to each Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the actual Available Tax
Increment. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in either Bond Fund shall be transferred to the
Authority's account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Notes in accordance with their
terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in
whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge on the Notes.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 7c) Page 16
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to Webster and Medley Row certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Notes as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 19, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This Sixth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) is
dated as of December 19, 2011, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and
UNION LAND II, LLC, (“Union Land”), MEDLEY ROW, LLC (“Medley Row”), WEBSTER
GROUP, LLC (Webster”), and CAMERATA, LLC (“Camerata” and, together with Union Land,
Medley Row, and Webster, as their interests appear, the “Redeveloper”), all Minnesota limited
liability companies.
WITNESSETH:
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Redevelopment Project”) and the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District within the
Redevelopment Project (the “TIF District”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (the “HRA Act”) and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended (the “TIF Act”).
B. The Authority and Union Land executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of
July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto
dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009, and a Fifth
Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010 (as amended, the “Contract”), whereunder the
Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain
costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of four stages of minimum
improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on certain property within the Redevelopment
Project and TIF District (the “Redevelopment Property”).
C. In accordance with the Contract, and pursuant to separate Assignment and
Assumptions of Contract for Private Redevelopment, each dated as of January 12, 2007, Union
Land has assigned (i) to KAN & Associates, LLC (“KAN”), Union Land’s rights in and obligations
under the Contract with respect to the Phase II Land and Phase II Minimum Improvements, and (ii)
to Webster, Union Land’s rights in and obligations under the Contract with respect to the Stage 2
Land and Stage 2 Minimum Improvements; pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated as of June 1, 2007, KAN has assigned to Camerata, KAN’s rights
in and obligations under the Contract with respect to the Stage 4 Land and the Stage 4 Minimum
Improvements; and pursuant to a separate Assignment and Assumption of Contract for Private
Redevelopment, KAN has assigned to Medley Row, KAN’s rights in and obligations under the
Contract with respect to the Stage 3 Land and the Stage 3 Minimum Improvements.
D. The Redeveloper has fully constructed the Stage 1 and Stage 4 Minimum
Improvements in accordance with the Contract.
E. The Redeveloper has requested and the Authority has agreed to modify certain
terms and conditions of the Contract with regard to the Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 17
Improvements, as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment
shall have the meanings given them in the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to definition of “Minimum Improvements” in Article I of the Contract.
The definition of “Minimum Improvements” is amended to read as follows:
“Minimum Improvements” means the construction on the Redevelopment Property of the
following improvements:
Phase I, consisting of a mixed use building containing approximately 25,000 square feet
of retail space and at least 74 units of residential condominiums (“Stage 1”), and an
apartment building containing at least 100 units of rental housing (“Stage 2”);
Phase II, consisting of at least 22 rental or owner-occupied townhomes (“Stage 3”) and
at least 220 units of rental housing (“Stage 4”).
2. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
commence and complete construction of the Minimum Improvements, with the specified minimum
market values for Stage 2 and Stage 3 as set forth in the related Assessment Agreement, in
accordance with the following schedule:
Phase/Stage Commencement Completion
Phase I /Stage 1 June 1, 2006 February 28, 2008
Phase I /Stage 2 July 1, 2012 December 31, 2013
Phase II /Stage 3 July 1, 2012 December 31, 2013
Phase II/Stage 4 July 1, 2007 September 1, 2008
The Redeveloper shall cause the parcels on which the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum Improvements
are to be constructed to be seeded and mowed until commencement of construction of said stages.
3. Amendment to Section 4.5(d) of the Contract. Section 4.5(d) of the Contract is
amended to read as follows:
(d) The parties recognize that continued weakness in the market for owner-occupied
condominium units has substantially impaired the Redeveloper’s ability to sell residential units in
the Stage 1 Minimum Improvements (the “Stage 1 Residential Units”), or to construct Stage 3 as
owner-occupied townhomes. Accordingly, the City and Authority recognize that the Redeveloper
will (i) enter into lease agreements with third-party renters for the Stage 1 Residential Units, and (ii)
construct the Stage 3 townhomes in a manner that Redeveloper believes will allow it to eventually
establish a common interest community and sell such townhomes to owner-occupants, but will
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 18
market and lease the Stage 3 townhomes to third-party renters until such time as Redeveloper
concludes that the market for owner-occupied condominium units has recovered and Redeveloper is
able to actually sell such townhomes. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement,
the City and Authority expressly recognize that nothing in this Agreement prohibits the
Redeveloper from continuing to market the Stage 1 Residential Units as rental units or from
marketing the Stage 3 townhomes as rental units. Redeveloper agrees to endeavor to sell the Stage
1 Residential Units and the Stage 3 townhomes to owner-occupants at the earliest opportunity that
Redeveloper determines in its sole discretion that such sales are economically feasible.
4. Addition of New Section 7.3(d) of the Contract. The Contract is amended to insert
the following as Section 7.3(d):
(d) Series 2012A and Series 2012B Notes. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this Agreement, the parties agree and acknowledge that due to the continuing negative environment
for the sale of tax increment revenue notes, the Authority shall reimburse Webster for a portion of
the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred in connection with the construction of the Stage 2
Minimum Improvements (the “Stage 2 Costs”) through the issuance of a pay-as-you -go tax
increment revenue note (the “Series 2012A Note”); and shall reimburse Medley Row for a portion
of the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred in connection with the construction of the Stage 3
Minimum Improvements (the “Stage 3 Costs”) through the issuance of a pay-as-you -go tax
increment revenue note (the “Series 2012B Note”, and together with the Series 2012A Note, the
“Notes”) subject to the terms of this Section.
(i) Terms. To reimburse the Stage 2 Costs, the Authority shall issue and Webster
shall purchase the Series 2012A Note in the maximum principal amount of $820,000; and to
reimburse the Stage 3 Costs, the Authority shall issue and Medley Row shall purchase the Series
2012B Note in the maximum principal amount of $200,000. The Authority shall issue and deliver
the Notes upon Redeveloper having:
(A) delivered to the Authority one or more certificates signed by the
Redeveloper’s duly authorized representative, containing the following: (i) a
statement that each cost identified in the certificate is a Stage 2 or Stage 3 Cost as
defined in this Agreement and that no part of such cost has been included in any
previous certification; (ii) evidence that each identified Stage 2 or Stage 3 Cost
has been paid or incurred by or on behalf of the Redeveloper; and (iii) a statement
that no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper has occurred and is
continuing under the Agreement. The Authority may, if not satisfied that the
conditions described herein have been met, return any certificate with a statement
of the reasons why it is not acceptable and requesting such further documentation
or clarification as the Authority may reasonably require;
(B) delivered to the Authority an investment letter in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the Authority; and
(C) completed the foundation work for the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum
Improvements.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 19
The terms of the Notes will be substantially those set forth in the form of the Notes shown in
the authorizing resolution attached as Schedule I (the “Authorizing Resolution”), and the Notes will
be subject to all terms of the Authorizing Resolution, which are incorporated herein by reference.
(ii) Termination of right to Notes. In accordance with Section 469.1763,
Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, as amended by Laws 2009, Chapter 88, Article 5, Section 8,
conditions for delivery of the Notes must be met by February 21, 2016. If the conditions
are not satisfied by such date, the Authority has no further obligations under this Section
7.4(d).
(iii) Assignment of Notes. The Authority acknowledges that the Redeveloper
may assign the Notes to third parties. The Authority consents to such an assignment,
conditioned upon receipt of an investment letter from such third party in a form reasonably
acceptable to the Authority.
5. Renumbering of and Amendment to Section 7.3(d) of the Contract. Section 7.3(d)
of the Contract is renumbered as Section 7.3(e) and amended to read as follows:
(e) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Tax
Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Initial Notes or the Series 2012A or Series 2012B
Notes will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Initial Notes or the Series 2012A
or Series 2012B Notes. Redeveloper expressly acknowledges that estimates of Tax Increment
prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District or this
Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as representations on which
the Redeveloper may rely. If the Public Redevelopment Costs exceed the net proceeds of the
Initial Notes or if the Stage 2 or Stage 3 Costs exceed the principal amount of the Series 2012A
or Series 2012B Notes, such excess is the sole responsibility of Redeveloper. The parties
acknowledge that the amount of Available Tax Increment generated by the Stage 2 and Stage 3
Minimum Improvements is expected to be smaller than originally estimated, as a result of the
changes in use and delays in construction of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum Improvements.
6. Amendment to Sections 9.2(b) and 9.2(c) of the Contract. Sections 9.2(b) and 9.2(c)
of the Contract are amended to read as follows:
(b) Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper, the Authority may withhold
payments under any Initial Note or under the Series 2012A or Series 2012B Note in accordance
with its terms, which withheld amount is payable, without interest thereon, on the first payment date
after the default is cured. Upon default under this Agreement with respect to any Stage, the
Authority may withhold Available Tax Increment attributable only to the defaulting Stage, but may
not withhold Available Tax Increment attributable to any Stage for which there is no uncured
default as of the relevant payment date.
(c) Upon default by Redeveloper, the Authority may cancel and rescind or terminate this
Agreement, provided that the Authority may not terminate the Initial Notes or Refunding Notes
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 20
or the Series 2012A or Series 2012B Note except in the case of an Event of Default under
Section 6.1 or 6.2 that is not cured within one year following delivery by the Authority to the
Redeveloper of notice of the default.
7. Addition of Schedule I to Contract. The Contract is amended by the addition of a
Schedule I in the form attached hereto.
8. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain
in full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of
this Amendment.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of December,
2011, by Phillip Finkelstein and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of
the Authority.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 22
Union Land II, LLC Camerata, LLC
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its _______________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by _________________, the _________________ of Union Land II, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by _________________, the _________________ of Camerata, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 23
Medley Row, LLC Webster Group, LLC
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its _______________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by ________________, the __________________ of Medley Row, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2011, by _________________, the _________________ of Webster Group, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 24
SCHEDULE I
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES TO WEBSTER GROUP,
LLC AND MEDLEY ROW, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF
District") within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project.
Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and
pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best
interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Notes, Series 2012A (the
“Series 2012A Note”) and Series 2012B (the “Series 2012B Note”, and together with the Series
2012A Note, the "Notes") for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs of the
Project.
1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the
President and Executive Director to issue the Notes in accordance with the Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the Authority and Union Land II LLC, dated as of March 6, 2006, as
amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto
dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth
Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009, a Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October
18, 2010, and a Sixth Amendment thereto dated as of December 19, 2011 (as so amended, the
“Agreement”). All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement
unless the context requires otherwise.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 25
(b) The Series 2012A Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of
$820,000 to Webster Group, LLC (“Webster”) in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by
Webster under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at
the rate of 4.0% per annum from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The
Series 2012A Note will be issued in the principal amount of Stage 2 Costs submitted and approved
in accordance with Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement. The Series 2012A Note is secured by Stage 2
Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Series 2012A Note herein. The
Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the
Series 2012A Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
(c) The Series 2012B Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of
$200,000 to Medley Row, LLC (“Medley Row”) in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred
by Medley Row under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear
interest at the rate of 4.0% per annum from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or
prepayment. The Series 2012B Note will be issued in the principal amount of Stage 3 Costs
submitted and approved in accordance with Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement. The Series 2012B
Note is secured by Stage 3 Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Series
2012B Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of
the date on which the Series 2012B Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 26
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $_____________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 20__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
4.0%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to [Webster Group, LLC/Medley Row, LLC]
or registered assigns (the "Owner"), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at
the rate of 4.0% per annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized
terms shall have the meanings provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
Authority and the Owner, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto
dated as of July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third
Amendment thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17,
2009, a Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010, and a Sixth Amendment thereto
dated as of December 19, 2011 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), unless the context requires
otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 2015 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2023 ("Payment Dates") in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 2015 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days of twelve 20-day months, and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 27
[Series 2012A Note:]
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date
solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to Stage 2 of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property
that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on
the Note.
[Series 2012B Note]
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to Stage 3 of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property
that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on
the Note.
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or
accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2023.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, within 30 days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default
is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the
Participation Amount as described in Section 7.5 of the Agreement, fifty percent of such
Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the
principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of
such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon
request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding
principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$_________________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and
administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 28
"Resolution") duly adopted by the Authority on December 19, 2011, and pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which
is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the
Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation
of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the
Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available
Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note
or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 7.4(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and
to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 29
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Controller, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Controller
_________________________
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 30
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. Each Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
Each Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Notes shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Notes shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Controller to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of registration
and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Notes and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Notes.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of any Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Notes shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. Any Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person[s]
in whose name the Notes are at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner[s] of
the Notes, whether the Notes shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Notes and for all other purposes, and all such
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 31
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of any Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of
and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Notes shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Notes
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
When the Notes have been so executed, each shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the
Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Series 2012A Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the form of Series 2012A Note,
and pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 2012B Note all Available
Tax Increment as defined in the form of the Series 2012B Note..
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Notes are no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain separate and special "Bond Funds" to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. The Authority irrevocably
agrees to appropriate to each Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the actual Available Tax
Increment. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in either Bond Fund shall be transferred to the
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 32
Authority's account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Notes in accordance with their
terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in
whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge on the Notes.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to Webster and Medley Row certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Notes as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 19, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 33
1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403
(612) 338-0012 fax (612) 904-7979
www.maxfieldresearch.com
December 6, 2011
Mr. Frank Dunbar
Dunbar Development Corporation
5000 Glenwood Avenue
Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55426
RE: Proposed Unit Mix for Adagio Rental Housing
As you requested, Maxfield Research Inc. has reviewed the proposed unit mix for the Adagio
rental housing that would be developed on the Hoigaard Village site. The Adagio would be the
third phase after Harmony Vista (condominiums, temporarily rented) and the Camerata (general
occupancy rental). A fourth phase, Medley Row Townhomes (22-2BR units) will be developed
simultaneously with The Adagio. The Medley Row units will be developed as condominiums,
but will be rented temporarily with a potential for conversion at a later date subject to market
demand, similar to Harmony Vista. A total of 416 units would be located on the site including
all three components (74 units at Harmony Vista, 220 units at Camerata, 100 units at Adagio and
22 units at Medley Row Townhomes).
Unit sizes are larger at Harmony Vista than at the Camerata because Harmony was originally
developed as condominiums and the units are being temporarily rented due to the slowdown in
the housing market.
Camerata and the proposed Adagio have unit sizes that are slightly smaller, on average, than
Harmony Vista, as these properties are/will be developed as traditional rentals.
Current housing market conditions throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area have suppressed the
demand for for-sale housing. Consumers remain cautious regarding entry into the for-sale
market, electing to continue to monitor market pricing closely. Younger households especially
have been affected by the housing downturn and are more cautious than are older households
that have already had some experience in the for-sale market.
Unit sizes for traditional rental properties are getting smaller while floor plan layouts are
becoming more open with fewer separate rooms. Living spaces flow into one another.
However, unit sizes for newer one-bedroom units are only 600 to 700 square feet. This results in
a comfortable living space for one individual, but potentially a small living space for two people.
The proposed unit mix for the Adagio addresses the market demand for rental units. In addition,
the overall unit mix for Hoigaard Village has been created to consider an appropriate balance of
unit types for the entire development.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 34
Mr. Frank Dunbar December 6, 2011
Dunbar Development Corporation Page 2
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Although the number of weddings has decreased in recent years, the decline is being made up by
a higher proportion of young households cohabitating either initially or long-term. Average age
for marriage is 27 for women and 29 for men. This is about the same time that couples consider
purchasing a home.
Home affordability has increased significantly since the market downturn. Creditworthy buyers
can now purchase more home for their money and at much better prices. Singles residing in a
one-bedroom apartment are more likely to either move-up to a two-bedroom apartment (if
renting) or to move into a single-family home or townhome (if preferring a for-sale unit).
Generally, the need for additional space (couple) or the need for additional bedrooms (couple
plus child or children) will support a decision to move into a larger dwelling. The issue is more
about space and greater privacy than about tenure (owned or rented).
Rents for new rental product are high. Singles and couples can conserve their money and save
more for a downpayment by paying less per month for rent in a smaller unit.
It is our professional opinion that smaller unit sizes will generally promote more homeownership
because singles that become couples are more likely to trade up to a larger unit whether that unit
is rented or owned. Those saving for homeownership are more likely to conserve their money
and do with less initially before moving into an owned dwelling.
Young households today are more cautious than before about their housing costs and how they
perceive homeownership as an investment. It would be helpful to offer more information about
the benefits of homeownership versus renting and promoting the current home stock is essential.
If couples do not have children, some do not feel the need to own a home right away or perhaps
forever. The dynamics of owning a home in today’s market have changed and may have
changed for many households. Promoting homeownership is best accomplished through
education, financial assistance with credit worthiness and downpayment assistance and programs
that offer incentives for owning a home. Today’s young buyers are highly convenience-oriented.
They are less likely to spend their leisure time at household chores. However, as the household
grows, the desire for space also increases. We believe that if households partner up in the future,
with smaller units, they are more likely to prefer a larger size unit, be it ownership or rental.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 35
Mr. Frank Dunbar December 6, 2011
Dunbar Development Corporation Page 3
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mary C. Bujold
President
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 36
Hoigaard
Village
Total
Unit
Analysis
DATE:
12.13.11
Hoigaard
Village
Total
Total
#Harmony
Vista The
Camerata The
Adagio
Medley
Row Total
Percentage 1
&
2
Bedroom
1 Retail 24,600
SF 24,600
SF
2 Studio 14 10 24 6%
3 1
Bedroom
7 47 36 90 22%27%
4 1
Bedroom
+
Den
49 67 38 154 37%
5 2
Bedroom
18 84 16 118 28%
6 2
Bedroom
+
Den 8 8 2%
7 Townhome
A
(1,965
SF)6 6 1%
8 Townhome
B
(2,047
SF)16 16 4%73%
9 TOTAL 74 220 100 22 416 100%100%
NOTE:
Actual
results
could
vary
from
these
projections
because
of
the
uncertainties
in
any
financial
forecast
Existing
Developments Future
Developments
EDA Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 7c)
Subject: Sixth Amendment of the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 37
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms.
Larsen), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr.
Morrison), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 14, 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.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 11-121 supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) in creating and implementing a management plan to educate,
control and prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species through the watershed
area.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 11-122 authorizing parking restrictions on Gamble Drive
east of Park Place Boulevard.
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on the 5600 block of Lake
Street.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 11-123 authorizing the elimination of permit parking
restrictions in front of 3300 Huntington Avenue and 2716 Dakota Avenue.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-124 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing
Improvement Project No. 2010-1300 Approving Plans and Specifications, and
Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Project No. 2010-1300.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-125 approving the First Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment By and Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority and Duke Realty.
4g. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes September 14, 2011.
4h. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Mr. Harmening requested that Consent Calendar item 4c be removed from the agenda
because a property owner has some concerns regarding the parking restrictions and staff
would like to work with the property owner and bring this item back at a later date.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to remove Consent
Calendar item 4c; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – 2012 Liquor License Fees
Resolution No. 11-126
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and proposed 2012 liquor license fees. She
explained that the 2012 liquor license fees are no greater than the limits set forth in State
law and where there is no State restriction, the license fees reflect the City’s cost of
issuing the license and other costs related to enforcement. She stated that the off-sale 3.2
malt liquor and brewpub off-sale malt liquor license fees will increase to $200 to cover
administration and enforcement costs. She indicated that all other liquor license fees will
remain the same and reflect the costs of administration and public safety and are
comparable to the mid-range of other similar sized cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor
Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-126 Adopting 2012 Liquor License Fees for the License Term March
1, 2012 – March 1, 2013.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
6b. Public Hearing on Greensboro Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area (HIA)
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and stated the City is authorized by statute to
establish HIAs to finance improvements. She indicated that the Greensboro
Condominium Association submitted a signed petition in October requesting a public
hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees with 56% of the owners signing the petition.
She stated the HIA application meets the City’s goals and the project costs are reasonable
and eligible for use of the HIA. She explained that a Renovation Committee was formed
to assist in evaluating the needed repairs and the scope of the project includes three areas
of improvement, including site improvements required due to poor soil conditions and
age, repair and replacement of the sanitary sewer, storm water, and water mains, grading
corrections, asphalt, curb and gutter replacement, and sidewalk and stoop repair. She
stated that exterior repairs will include replacement of the failed siding, balcony and roof
repairs, replacement of common area windows, and repair of all exterior garages. She
noted that the brick siding will be retained and repaired with reserve funds. She indicated
that the total project cost is $3,835,000 which will be shared among all the property
owners, and the average fee per unit is $14,762 with an annual average cost per unit of
$1,354 including interest, payable over 20 years. She explained that Greensboro
Association is seeking to base fees on a three-tiered system with all common area costs
including site work assessed to each unit based on the percentage of common area
ownership which is based on a unit’s square footage; all common building area
improvements would be assessed to each unit based on the percentage of building
common area ownership; and all limited common areas including garages, lockers, and
balconies would be assessed to each unit based on the cost of improvements associated
with that unit. She added that counsel has prepared an opinion that this three-tiered
system is fair and reasonable and meets statutory requirements. She explained the City’s
special assessment hardship deferral allows the fee, including interest, to be deferred until
the owner sells their unit. She discussed the numerous meetings held with residents to
explain the proposed HIA, the City’s role, and the petition process. She noted that the
petition signed by property owners was drafted by Kennedy & Graven according to
statute. She explained that the HIA would be funded by a combination of bonds and
internal funding based on the City’s financial adviser’s recommendations and will limit
the City’s reserve funds and ensure that sufficient dollars are available for other needs.
She noted that the City’s financial risk is low and repayment is made through real estate
tax payments. She added that Council action to approve a housing improvement fee for
the Greensboro Association will be considered at the Second Reading of the ordinance
and not at tonight’s meeting. She then introduced Ms. Martha Ingram, Kennedy &
Graven.
Councilmember Ross requested the record reflect that as a resident of the Greensboro
Condominium Association, she signed a petition requesting the city consider
establishment of the HIA and as an affected party, she would abstain from voting on this
matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Waller, 7331 West Franklin, President of Greensboro Condominium
Association, appeared before the City Council and thanked the City Council for
considering Greensboro’s HIA petition. He encouraged the City Council to approve the
establishment of the HIA and imposition of the fees to pay for the improvements. He
indicated that the Association’s effort to keep dues low has had a predictable result and
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
there is not enough money to pay for the sorely needed repairs and without an HIA loan,
they would be forced to raise dues to an unbearable level. He stated that spreading the
project costs over 20 years will allow the fees to be more affordable while still allowing
them to maintain reserves. He added that the improvements will complement the City’s
efforts to improve the Willow Park neighborhood.
Ms. Jolene Hisdahl, 7414 West 22nd Street, appeared before the City Council to express
support for the HIA.
Mr. Andrew Anderson, 7439 West Franklin, Treasurer of Greensboro Condominium
Association, appeared before the City Council and stated the low dues have led to the
current situation and the HIA is the best option available. He indicated they have
engaged outside resources to get their reserves on track to meet their obligations without
assessments in the future, but without a large influx for these improvements, they will not
be able to meet their obligations. He expressed support for the HIA.
Ms. Stephanie Statz, 7435 West Franklin, Chairman of the Renovation Committee,
appeared before the City Council and expressed support for the HIA. She indicated they
have had many discussions regarding the project and feel they have gotten the scope and
cost down to a point where they feel it is affordable for residents. She encouraged the
City Council to support the HIA request.
Ms. Sophia Starinets, 2032 Louisiana Ave S, appeared before the City Council and stated
she did not vote “yes” for the HIA. She stated they bought their property 15 years ago
and her son bought his two-bedroom townhome five years ago for $170,000 and the
current selling price of these townhomes is $90,000. She asked if she would still owe this
renovation cost if she sells her property in ten years.
Ms. Larsen explained that the financing is structured such that if an owner were to sell
their unit in five years and was previously making payments while living there, at the
point of sale, they could negotiate with the buyer whether to pay off the fee or the fee
could remain on the property.
Ms. Mary Jane Baltes, 7429 West Franklin, appeared before the City Council and stated
she has been a resident at Greensboro for over 30 years and supports the HIA petition.
Mr. Paul Swerdlick, 7309 West Franklin, appeared before the City Council and stated he
has lived at Greensboro for 15 years and it has been a wonderful experience for them. He
expressed support for the HIA.
Mr. Luke Juhl, owner of multiple units, appeared before the City Council and stated he
has purchased units at Greensboro as an investment and the HIA would help that
investment. He indicated the exterior is in terrible shape and without this HIA, the
members of the Association will have to pay huge increases in their association dues. He
added he sees the HIA as a great option to benefit the residents.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the City has successfully used the HIA in other
projects in the City, including Sunset Ridge, and failure to make the needed repairs will
cause the area to fall into worse shape.
Councilmember Santa indicated that the development is in need of repair and the HIA
application is in line with the City’s commitment and Vision to have a diversity of well-
maintained housing.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
First Reading of an Ordinance establishing the Greensboro Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21
and to set Second Reading for December 5, 2011.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Mayor Jacobs absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat
Resolution No. 11-127
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and proposed Preliminary Plat submitted by
Lakewest Development for property located on the northeast corner of Minnetonka
Boulevard and Ensign Avenue along the south shore of Cobble Crest Lake. He advised
that this area is zoned as R-1 residential and consists of two lots with one house on the
property which will be removed as part of the plat. He reviewed the six proposed lot
sizes and setbacks, noting that all setback limits are met as indicated on the plat drawing.
He advised that Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 will have driveway access onto Ensign Avenue and
Lots 5 and 6 will share access on Minnetonka Boulevard as requested by the County and
agreed to by the applicant. He reviewed the proposed grading plan noting the steep grade
change along the shore of Cobble Crest Lake which should be considered an
environmentally sensitive area. He stated that a dry infiltration pond will be constructed
in portions of the back yards of Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 and this pond will release at the outlet
structure between Lots 2 and 3 to an existing catch basin at the north end of Ensign
Avenue. He noted that the catch basin will be upgraded to accommodate this infiltration
pond and the storm water plan has been reviewed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and meets the Watershed District’s requirements. He stated there are 33
significant trees on the site and 12 significant trees will be removed totaling 212 caliper
inches, resulting in 70 caliper inches of trees to be replaced. He added that the trees and
scrub brush will not be removed from the slope along the south side of the lake. He then
introduced Mr. Curt Fretham, applicant, and Martin Campion, PE.
Councilmember Santa stated that the slope on the back of Lot 1 is significant and asked if
this would impact the placement of a house on that lot.
Mr. Morrison explained the slope is 29 feet down to the lake and there is scrub brush and
significant trees in this area. He stated the applicant has concerns about grading on this
lot and has proposed some construction fencing along the ridge to prevent adverse
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
environmental impacts during construction. He added that the applicant has also agreed
to a condition that Lot 1 shall not have a walk-out basement. He indicated that Lot 1 also
has a condition of a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet along the west property line.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that these items are mentioned as
conditions for approval but do not represent variance requests.
Mr. Morrison replied that this was correct.
Councilmember Santa stated that because there are no variance requests, Council is
constrained as to what it can and cannot do when taking action on this matter.
Mr. Scott advised that Council has extremely limited discretion in approving a
subdivision plat of this nature where no variances are requested and all criteria contained
in the subdivision ordinance is met.
Councilmember Mavity requested information regarding the size of the homes to be built.
She stated that she felt the proposed subdivision adds to Council’s policy for providing
move-up housing and attracting families into St. Louis Park.
Mr. Fretham stated that the homes to be built will be approximately 2,000-2,500 square
feet above grade with full basements for a total of 3,000-3,800 finished square feet.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the applicant would be able to build this size home on
the lots without needing variances.
Mr. Fretham replied that he could build this size home and the footprints on one of the
plans showed 2,200-2,400 square foot foundations without coming close to the setbacks.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-127 Giving Approval for Preliminary Plat of Fretham Twelfth
Addition.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
8b. Amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
Resolution No. 11-128
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed amendments to the “Plan by
Neighborhood” section of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Comprehensive
Plan as adopted in 1998 included basic neighborhood data and has been completely
revised following a city-wide neighborhood input process. She indicated that over 150
residents and business owners participated in the process which included discussions
regarding the City’s Vision, Comprehensive Plan update and future projections, changes
that have occurred in the City since the last update, and current projects/future directions.
She reviewed the key findings of the neighborhood input process, including increasing
neighborhood walkability, improving safety and street crossings, increasing traffic
calming, reducing nuisance issues, as well as enhancing public nature areas. She
indicated that bike/sidewalk issues have come up repeatedly in the community survey,
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes of November 21, 2011
recreation survey, and in the sidewalk and trails plan which helps to solidify that this
represents a big issue in the community. She noted that the Plan by Neighborhood
section does not propose any land use changes, does not include any new policies or
changes to existing policies. She added that the Plan by Neighborhood provides a
touchstone for evaluating development proposals and long range planning, reinforces
City directions, and shows consistency with the City’s long range plans.
Councilmember Ross expressed thanks to staff for their work on the amendments and to
all the citizens who participated in the process. She requested further information
regarding improving traffic calming.
Ms. McMonigal explained there are a number of methods used to calm traffic around the
community and trying to slow down and make people aware of bicycles and pedestrians,
including “complete streets” which has been incorporated into the planning processes to
make sure the City’s sidewalks and trails are adequate. She added that this involves
paying attention to designing a street not just for automobiles.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 11-128 amending the Plan by Neighborhood Section of the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
9. Communications
None.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:20 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Stacie Kvilvang (Ehlers & Associates).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning –December 12, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for December 12th.
Councilmember Mavity requested that more time be allotted for the discussion regarding the
Cedar Lake Regional Trail crossings.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Mn/DOT representatives have been confirmed for December
12th because there are a number of residents who want to attend the meeting.
Mr. Harmening replied that a representative from Mn/DOT has been confirmed for the
December 12th meeting.
2. Eliot School Redevelopment - Update
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and advised that the developer is proposing a 144-unit
market rate, multi-family development on the site. He stated that given current market
conditions, a multi-family residential rental development is the most realistic type of project for
the site. He noted that the proposed density is higher than envisioned in the design guidelines.
Councilmember Ross indicated that when the listening sessions were held, concerns were
expressed from residents about rentals on this site and a desire to not see the property developed
for rental. She acknowledged the current real estate market and agreed that rental was probably
the best use of the site. She asked if the rental units could be converted at some point in the
future to condominiums or townhomes for sale.
Mr. Locke agreed that possibility could be explored.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2011
Councilmember Mavity suggested the site could include a mix of rentals and owner occupied
housing.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Ross and stated she did not see how
converting the rental units to condominiums would be possible given the increased density. She
stated that comments received at the listening sessions were clear that residents wanted to see
home ownership and if that is not possible now, she urged the developer to construct the site so
that the rentals could be easily converted when the market turns around. She requested further
information regarding the proposed rents of “20% less than recent upper-end apartments.”
Mr. Locke explained that the development proposes market rate rentals with the goal of the
project to have more affordable housing compared to the upper-end apartments at the Ellipse.
Councilmember Sanger acknowledged the need for rental units on the site and agreed that some
or the entire site should be constructed for conversion at a later date. She expressed concern that
developers appear to be focusing on relatively small one-bedroom units which will attract only
single people without children. She requested information regarding the land valuation for
purposes of the sale as it relates to TIF financing and indicated that the property should be valued
at its current zoning. She referenced the sale of land in Brookside which she felt was over-
valued at the time of sale, resulting in the School District receiving more cash and the City
subsidizing the project by providing TIF money. She indicated she would not vote for that kind
of financing.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that when the City dealt with the Brookside property, there
was a strong desire among Council for large single family homes and anytime these types of
dictates are added, it has financial implications. He felt that the proposed rental development
made sense and noted that if some of the units are going to be converted to condominiums, it will
likely mean increased TIF financing. He agreed with Councilmember Sanger’s concern
regarding the amount of one-bedroom units in the community and encouraged the developer to
remember there will be a large park in the area and the site has great bus access.
Councilmember Ross stated she has heard from senior constituents that there are not a lot of
rentals available to them because the newer developments are geared toward younger, single
residents. She encouraged the developer to consider units that cater to seniors or people with
disabilities.
Councilmember Mavity indicated she did not have a problem with 144 units versus 129, but was
concerned that the increased density will mean that the units are smaller in size. She stated that
Council has previously talked about areas in the City where poverty is concentrated and this site
provides an opportunity to include some scattered subsidized units which could be a good fit.
She encouraged the City to find ways to subsidize the rentals and look at capital subsidies to
make the units affordable in the long term.
3. Community Recreation Facility Tour Recap
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2011
Councilmember Ross stated that she liked the theater, conference and party rooms, coffee shop,
senior facility, day care facility, and free walking track at Chaska. She indicated she also liked
that the Chaska facility provided open basketball courts for use by members.
Councilmember Mavity noted that the three facilities are sprawling and the City does not have
significant acreage to build a facility of this size. She questioned whether the City could have a
facility without that sprawl and make use of its current spaces, including Lenox and the Rec
Center. She stated the City wants to serve all areas of the community and asked what the City
would gain and lose by spreading out pieces of these functions. She stated it will be important to
work in concert with the School District to avoid overlapping uses. She felt that the task force
should include someone from the schools and suggested that the task force include someone
from the Human Rights Commission to make sure all areas of the City are engaged in the
process.
Councilmember Finkelstein encouraged Council to consider how the City will pay for a facility
initially and on an ongoing basis. He also encouraged Council to consider how a new facility
might duplicate what the City already has and how the City can create a facility somewhere in
between. He felt that the task force should include people with financial backgrounds. He
reminded Council that the City is currently paying for the new MSC facility and two new fire
stations; in addition, Council approved a plan to spend $15-20 million on expanded sidewalks
and trails.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she liked the free walking track, fitness facilities, waterpark
and pools, child care facility, coffee shop, and the areas for people to gather, adding that the idea
for a community recreation facility started as a need for a gathering place in the City. She
indicated she liked the senior facility at Chaska because it provided a separate place that
integrated into the larger community center. She noted that the Chaska facility has a high
percentage of their population as members, which she would like to see emulated in St. Louis
Park. She stated that a new facility will not be totally self-sustaining and encouraged the City to
look carefully at funding models and to what extent the facility will be subsidized. She indicated
she would like to have one facility that is accessible by bus. She suggested that the task force
include people with firsthand experience running or building these types of facilities.
Councilmember Santa stated she would like to see some youth representatives on the task force
in addition to representatives of the youth athletic associations. She indicated she liked the
synergy of having all activities under one roof. She stated she did not like the structure of the
public/private partnership in Plymouth. She stated it will be important to consider what baby
boomers want and this process will provide an opportunity to reexamine what an active older
adult is looking for. She added that she wanted to see a lot of meeting rooms where
neighborhood groups like the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts can meet.
Mayor Jacobs stated he liked the indoor domed turf facility at Plymouth. He stated he liked the
location of the Eden Prairie facility because kids could walk there from school. He noted that he
does not want the facility to be a teen hangout and wanted to see an eclectic mix of people. He
indicated he would like to see the facility in a central location, near the bus line and within
walking or biking distance of the high school, and noted that the City’s demographics will
require a different type of facility than Chaska or Eden Prairie. He shared Councilmember
Finkelstein’s concerns about how to pay for a new facility while giving life to what residents say
they want.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2011
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move ahead with the formation of a
task force.
Mr. Harmening agreed to provide Council with further information regarding the role of the task
force and composition of the task force for approval by Council.
4. Tax Increment District Management Review
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Stacie Kvilvang from Ehlers &
Associates.
Ms. Kvilvang provided an overview of the City’s TIF Districts, tax capacity captured by TIF, the
City’s increase in tax base, current TIF obligations, the City’s Construction Assistance Program,
forecast of issues, and recommendations. She explained that the Highway 7 TIF District will
decertify in 2011 and the Excelsior Boulevard HSTI District will decertify in 2012. She noted
that approximately $326,000 will be redistributed to the City following decertification of the
Excelsior Boulevard HSTI District. She discussed the City’s pay as you go obligations and
existing bonds and noted that over 50% of the City’s TIF Districts are being paid off before term.
She also discussed the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) exclusion and stated that an
updated analysis will be prepared regarding the MVHC exclusion and its impact on existing
obligations and amounts available for other projects. She recommended that a pooling analysis
be completed for all existing districts to determine how much will be available for use by the
City. She discussed the City’s use of TIF Districts with ongoing cash balances, the five year rule
related to new projects, and the importance of monitoring obligations to make sure that
increment available for pooling is utilized. She stated that all of the City’s TIF Districts are in
good financial health, the City has opportunities available to utilize the success of its TIF
Districts, and the City has dollars available to augment its housing needs and redevelopment
efforts.
Councilmember Sanger asked if any excess funds can be used to provide funds for the Highway
7/Louisiana Avenue interchange.
Mr. Hunt explained that while the report shows a cash balance in the Elmwood TIF district of
approximately $3.6 million, these funds have been obligated in the City’s CIP.
Ms. Kvilvang added that excess funds can be used within reason for the Highway 7/Louisiana
Avenue interchange project depending on how it is tied to the project. She stated that they will
review this based on Council priorities.
Mr. Swanson indicated that the Housing Rehab Fund needs additional resources and staff is
looking at what funds might be available and how best to apply those resources.
5. Future of Cable TV Task Force Findings
Mr. Zwilling presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration. He
discussed the assumptions contained in the report about the future of video services and the study
undertaken by the Telecommunications Advisory Commission task force.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2011
Councilmember Ross indicated that the trends indicate St. Louis Park is an aging community and
also has an increasing immigrant population. She noted that 64% of adults aged 65 and older are
dependent on this form of media and asked how video services for this population will change in
the future and how the City will balance the need for technology with more traditional forms of
media.
Mr. Zwilling stated that the City’s 65 and older groups will continue to be served by traditional
broadcast and cablecast services.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he felt that the number of people declining use of Cable TV
will continue to accelerate, citing a recent article that indicated one-third of people under age 30
do not use cable and get all their information on the computer. He indicated that the City cannot
rely on its franchise fees as a funding source and will need to work on finding other ways to
utilize its Cable TV channels. He suggested partnering with the CVB and/or the School District
on one of its channels.
Councilmember Mavity stated that it will be important to consider what the City needs in terms
of Cable TV infrastructure and services, including wi fi, to make sure the City continues to be an
attractive place for businesses and residents.
Mr. Zwilling noted that the contract for a fiber study was recently approved and the study will be
completed in the spring.
Councilmember Sanger stated she felt it was critical that the City continue broadcasting City
meetings and City programs and to maintain the availability of all City channels to the
community.
Councilmember Santa stated that fiber has the potential to be an income generator for the City
and encouraged the City to pay attention to this. She felt it was important to remember that a
number of residents have no relationship with Comcast and are not able to access the City’s
video services through Cable TV and to consider how the City will offer video services to those
residents.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the City should remain competitive in terms of
video services, fiber optic, and other technology because it makes the overall community
competitive in terms of attracting residents and businesses.
It was also the consensus of the City Council to retain video services as a key communications
tool in the future, especially after January 2021 when the current franchise expires, and to work
annually on the Cable TV Fund to find other revenue sources to pay for continued video
services.
Councilmember Ross agreed it will be important for the City to remain competitive but felt the
City should also work to get ahead of trends so that St. Louis Park is considered a community in
the forefront of technology.
Councilmember Sanger stated it will also be important not to lose sight of those residents who
are less tech savvy and to find ways of communicating with them.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2011
6. City Council Workshop – January 20-21, 2012
Ms. Gothberg presented the staff report and requested feedback from Council on topics for
discussion at the workshop in January. She added that a draft agenda will be presented to
Council in the near future.
Councilmember Santa advised that she may not be able to attend the session on Friday evening.
Mr. Harmening agreed to send a survey to Council requesting input on the workshop agenda and
proposed topics for discussion. He noted that the two new Councilmembers will attend the
workshop as well.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening advised that Mr. Locke was contacted by a representative of LA Fitness
indicating that LA Fitness has acquired a number of Bally’s properties around the country
including the St. Louis Park facility. He stated that a real estate representative for LA Fitness
contacted the City about the Bally’s property in St. Louis Park and redevelopment opportunities
on this site, including the City’s adjacent parcel.
Mr. Harmening stated that Giveback Day is Saturday, December 3rd at Park Tavern.
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. October 2011 Monthly Financial Report
9. Charter Amendment for Civil Penalties
10. Cavalia Summary Report
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 5, 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, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Deputy City
Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Director of
Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Controller (Mr. Swanson),
Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Commercial Appraiser (Ms.
Nathanson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms.
Larsen), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planner (Mr. Fulton), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. AWWA George Warren Fuller Award to Scott Anderson, Utility
Superintendent
Mayor Jacobs stated that Utility Superintendent Scott Anderson recently received the
prestigious George Warren Fuller award given by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA). He indicated that Mr. Anderson has provided over thirty years of
service to the City and continues to make a positive difference through his activities as a
coach, mentor, and volunteer. He then introduced AWWA MN Section Chair Carol
Blommel Johnson and MN Section Past Chair Bert Tracy.
Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Anderson was presented the George Warren Fuller Award at
the AWWA’s annual conference which is the highest award presented to one member for
their distinguished service to the water supply field in commemoration of the life of
George Warren Fuller. She indicated that Mr. Anderson’s service to AWWA and the
City has been exceptional and extraordinary. She stated that Mr. Anderson has made
several presentations to St. Louis Park schools and has been a major force in the “Water
for People” effort in the State which helps people improve their quality of life through
sanitation and various health and hygiene education programs. She then presented Mr.
Anderson with an award plaque recognizing his accomplishments and service.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
Mr. Anderson expressed his thanks to the Mayor and City Council. He also expressed
thanks to Mr. Harmening and Mr. Rardin for encouraging his involvement in the
AWWA. He stated it is an honor to work for the City and complimented his co-workers.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 28, 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.
4a. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Southwest Hennepin Drug
Task Force Agreement on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 11-119 calling for a public hearing by the City Council on
January 17th, 2012 relative to the proposed Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing
District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an Economic Development
District).
4c. Approve extending the Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health
Mutual Aid Agreement for one year, expiring December 31, 2012.
4d. Approve entering into a service agreement with the Hennepin County Department
of Corrections for continuing to use their crews from the Sentencing to Service
Program (STS Program).
4e. Authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2012 Boulevard
Tree Pruning Contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-120 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $9,009.44 for the Park Center Boulevard Project, Contract No. 99-
11.
4g. Approve Resolution No. 11-129 authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance
renewal for December 1, 2011 – November 30, 2012.
4h. Authorize the execution of an encroachment agreement for a fence at 3300 Idaho
Avenue South.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 11-130 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 4133 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D.
07-028-24-32-0050.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 11-131 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN -
P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0204.
4k. Approval of Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, 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 Omodt absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Off-Sale Liquor License – Tina, Inc.
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and advised that Tina, Inc., dba St. Louis Park
Liquor, has made application for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license located at 6316
Minnetonka Boulevard. She noted that this is an existing liquor store owned by Lua
Nguyen who is selling the establishment to Tina Kim Nguyen who will be the sole
owner.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
an off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Tina, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor located at
6316 Minnetonka Boulevard with the license term through March 1, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
6b. 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and explained the City is required to hold a
Truth in Taxation public hearing annually. He advised that Council has met a number of
times regarding the budget and the proposed 2012 operating budget for the General Fund
and Park & Recreation Fund is approximately 1% higher than the 2011 budget. He stated
the Preliminary General Property Tax Levy adopted by Council in September was
$23,830,726 or approximately 5% higher than that adopted for 2011. He indicated that
the primary reason for the 5% increase is that the City has started to pay off the bonds for
the two fire station projects and provides Council with some flexibility for funding some
additional items in an amount up to $178,000.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
Mr. Heintz reviewed the budget process undertaken by the City and Council, including
the budget production guidelines which include a focus on maintaining service delivery
levels as directed by Council.
Mr. Swanson presented the 2011 adopted budget and 2012 preliminary budget for the
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund, noting that the City is required to adopt a
balanced budget each calendar year. He stated the proposed 2012 budget is projected to
be approximately $29 million, representing an approximate 1.03% increase compared to
2011. He reviewed the revenue sources and expenditures in the General Fund and Park
& Recreation Fund, pointing out that public safety has increased slightly due to the
addition of another police officer to address increased traffic at the West End. He stated
that the proposed 2012 property tax levy reflects a 5% increase from the 2011 final
property tax levy and explained that the City proposes to allocate $20.1 million to the
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund and will reallocate some of the dollars from
the Park Improvement Fund to pay down the bonds issued for the new fire stations. He
then reviewed the average residential property tax change and indicated that
approximately 21% of residential properties will see a decrease in their overall property
tax, 54% of residential properties will see an increase of 0%-4.9%, and the remaining
25% will see an increase of 5% or more. He also reviewed the average business property
tax change and stated that 10% of commercial properties will see an increase of 0%-4.9%
and 83% of commercial properties will see an increase over 5%. He explained that even
if the tax remains the same, the tax rate has increased due to a smaller tax base existing
within the City. He compared the City’s 2012 tax rates with others cities in Hennepin
County, noting that St. Louis Park ranked 19th out of 46 for city residential property taxes
and 21st out of 46 for overall residential property taxes in Hennepin County.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lynette Siegfried appeared before the City Council and stated her property has been
devalued by $40,000 but her property taxes went up by 5%. She added that she no longer
receives the homestead credit so it felt like her property taxes were going up 100%. She
did not understand how that can be justified.
Mr. Swanson explained that the Market Value Homestead Credit program was replaced
by the legislature with the Market Value Exclusion program. He stated that property tax
statements will show a reduction in value represented by the Market Value Exclusion.
He added that he or the City Assessor would be happy to meet with Ms. Siegfried to
review her tax statement and answer any questions.
Mr. Harmening indicated under the Market Value Homestead Credit program, the City
used to get as much $650,000 annually to write down property taxes and this homestead
credit was reflected on property tax statements; however, as part of the State’s budget
balancing process, the Market Value Homestead Credit program was cut and the Market
Value Exclusion program was implemented which decreased the tax on lower valued
homes but increased the tax on higher valued homes.
Mr. Bultema stated that the Market Value Homestead Credit program was a State-paid
credit and the implications for property owners were seamless; the new Market Value
Exclusion program helped to resolve the State’s budget deficit and the program is meant
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
to replicate the Market Value Homestead Credit program with minimal impact to
property owners.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Resolution No. 11-132
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and proposed amendment to the existing PUD,
including a new 6,600 square foot building, overall site modifications, and modifications
to the McDonald’s site. He explained that the existing access points would remain the
same under the proposal and the site will continue to include shared parking with Park
Nicollet after 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. He advised that the Mann Theater will be leaving
the site, Chipotle, Village Hair, and Bruegger’s Bagels would relocate to the new
building, and a new retail tenant would occupy the first floor of the Mann Theater
building. He stated the plan will add some pedestrian crosswalks to improve access and
overall flow of traffic. He indicated the required parking is 447 spaces and the plan
provides 623 spaces. He presented a drawing of the proposed building which will be
oriented toward Excelsior Boulevard and include outdoor patio seating. He stated that a
rain garden to the east of the restaurant building will be added to bring the site into
further compliance with the City’s storm water regulations. He indicated that staff is
recommending a sidewalk connection to the southwest of the building along Excelsior
Boulevard because of its proximity to a bus stop. He then reviewed the proposed
modifications to the McDonald’s site which includes closing the south parking lot
entrance to improve traffic flow, modifications to the parking lot, and adding an
additional drive-thru lane. He stated that the landscape improvements include the
addition of trees and shrubs to comply with the City’s zoning ordinance. He noted that
waste removal and deliveries to the new building will be handled during off-peak times.
He added that the Planning Commission raised concerns about noise and lighting in the
Granite City area of the site and those concerns are being addressed by staff. He then
introduced Dean Williamson from Frauenshuh Companies and Eric Reiners from
Sperides Reiners Architects.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the developer’s long
range plans for the theater building. She expressed concern that the theater space will
remain vacant and questioned the impact of that vacant space on the property owner’s
ability to maintain the building. She felt that the loss of parking spaces was significant
particularly because it is not known what type of use will occupy the building in the
future and how much parking will be required. She added that the current tenants have a
lot of daytime use which creates a tight parking situation with little or no parking
available at Park Nicollet.
Mr. Williamson indicated that a theater is not out of the question for this portion of the
site. He stated that the vacancy will not create an issue from a maintenance perspective.
He acknowledged the concerns regarding parking and the importance of making sure the
site works well with the overall campus, including Park Nicollet.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
Councilmember Mavity agreed with the concerns expressed regarding parking and
suggested that the orientation of the Mann theater building for the new tenant provide for
entering the building from the north or south side, which might help manage the parking
demands.
Councilmember Ross expressed concern regarding the movement of foot traffic from
people leaving Park Nicollet and crossing over to McDonald’s.
Mr. Fulton advised there are two ways to access the site from the Park Nicollet campus
with sidewalks on the east side of Park Nicollet and a second crossing on the north side.
He stated that pedestrians are being discouraged from walking in the traffic aisles.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-132 Amending Resolution No. 11-033 Approved on March 7, 2011,
Approving an Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section
14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning for Property Zoned “O”
Office, C-2 Commercial and R-C High Density Multiple Family Residence Districts
Located at the Northeast quadrant of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100.
The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed; Councilmember Omodt
absent).
8b. Minikahda Mobil Service Station Expansion
Resolution No. 11-133
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and explained the applicant is proposing to construct
a car wash in order to better utilize the site. He stated the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 is
required to allow the applicant to construct a car wash expansion to the existing service
station. He reviewed the performance standards for the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and
reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle service/repair with a car
wash. He presented a drawing of the proposed building and reviewed the off-street
parking and curb cuts, noting there are 28 parking spaces provided which exceeds the
City C ode. He explained that Hennepin County is requiring that the access point on
Excelsior Boulevard be reconfigured to ensure that eastbound drivers on Excelsior
Boulevard not enter the site from this location; in addition, the access point on France
Avenue is currently too wide for a curb cut and the County has recommended this be
modified to 30’ wide. He advised that there is currently a sanitary sewer main running
through the parking lot and the applicant proposes to construct the car wash in this
location, resulting in the need to move the sanitary sewer main and modify the City’s
easement. He stated the applicant would like to construct the car wash within 60 feet of
an adjacent residential property, resulting in the need for a variance to the City’s
requirement for 100 feet of separation between a residential property and a car wash. He
noted that the residential property’s garage serves as a buffer between the house and car
wash, coupled with the additional screening proposed by the applicant. He then
introduced Alberto Bertomeu, the current owner and applicant.
Mr. Bertomeu appeared before the City Council and stated the location of the storm
sewer pipe has limited his ability to make improvements to the site. He indicated that the
car wash is designed to be longer which will keep the noise inside because the doors will
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
remain closed while cars are being dried. He noted that the site plan calls for concrete
walls on the back side which will provide a sound barrier for the residential neighbor. He
added that he will install quiet efficient blowers inside the car wash.
Mr. Robb Bader, 3920 Excelsior Boulevard, appeared before the City Council and stated
that he was concerned about noise but after meeting with Mr. Bertomeu, he feels that Mr.
Bertomeu has done enough to mitigate noise coming from the car wash. He felt that if
there are issues in the future, he will be able to resolve them with Mr. Bertomeu and they
are excited to see a new car wash on the site.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the owner’s sensitivity to noise and
mitigating that impact to the neighbors. She asked if the City has any kind of control to
ensure that the noise mitigation remains the same if the property is sold in the future.
Mr. Fulton advised that the resolution addresses this in part with the restriction on hours
of operation. He stated the location of the walls also provides a buffer. He stated that the
City has stringent noise regulations in place and added more stringent standards could be
put in place in the Conditional Use Permit.
Councilmember Mavity felt that the hours of operation seemed excessive given the
proximity to the closest neighbor and requested that the hours of operation be revised to
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 p.m. She also felt that the variance request was
too close to the neighboring property and wanted to make sure the applicant is doing
everything he can to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors. She also
expressed concern regarding the impact of noise and headlights on the neighbors.
Councilmember Ross stated that the City’s noise ordinance goes into effect at 10:00 p.m.
and indicated she would support a 10:00 p.m. closing time for the car wash.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern regarding the rezoning request and did not
feel it was appropriate for this small corner lot. She indicated if the zoning is changed to
C-2, a proposal for a more intense land use could be presented to the City in the future
which would be more detrimental to the neighbors. She stated the rezoning request does
not seem reasonable and the City has no legal obligation to rezone the site to allow
construction of a car wash. She indicated the variance request is for 40% of the setback
and did not feel there was any legal reason to grant the variance because the applicant is
already making use of the land and there is no entitlement to make a more intense use by
adding a car wash. She also expressed concern about the stacking of cars for the car
wash and resulting vehicle emissions and noise from people blasting their radios while
waiting to get in the car wash.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to deny
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing
Boundaries of Zoning Districts (3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard).
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if it would still be possible to bring this matter up at a
later date if agreement is reached with respect to the Conditional Use Permit.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
Mr. Scott advised that if the motion to deny the rezoning is passed, Council will have in
effect denied the rezoning. He stated it would follow then that Council will be required
to deny the Conditional Use Permit and the variance request because without the
rezoning, the applicant cannot construct a car wash in the C-1 Zoning District. He added
if the motion to deny the rezoning fails, the matter is still on the table for action by
Council.
The motion failed 2-4 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Finkelstein, Ross, and Santa
opposed; Councilmember Omodt absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt First
Reading of an Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing
Boundaries of Zoning Districts (3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard, and to set second
reading for December 19, 2011.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger opposed; Councilmember
Omodt absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-133 Granting Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-194 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Motor Vehicle Service with a
Car Wash for Property Zoned C-2 General Commercial Located at 3901 and 3921
Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Mavity requested a friendly amendment to condition #17 to revise the
hours of operation for the car wash to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Councilmember Santa agreed with the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Ross seconded the friendly amendment.
Mayor Jacobs indicated he did not agree with the 9:00 p.m. amendment and supported the
Conditional Use Permit as presented to Council.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger opposed; Councilmember
Omodt absent).
8c. Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) Resolution No. 11-134, Ordinance No. 2406-11
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and advised that there have been no changes since
the public hearing on November 21, 2011.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2406-11 establishing the Greensboro Condominium
Owners Association Housing Improvement Area Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Councilmember Omodt absent).
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 5, 2011
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-134 approving a Housing Improvement Fee for the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Councilmember Omodt absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
authorize execution of Contract for Private Development and any other related
documents by the Mayor and City Manager between the City and Greensboro
Condominium Association in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and
resolution.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Councilmember Omodt absent).
8d. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of City Code – Rental
Housing Licensing
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and advised that Chapter 8 of the City Code is
proposed to be revised to further clarify the administrative appeal process available to
licensees of rental property. He indicated the provision will state that recipients receiving
notice of a violation of the City’s crime free provisions would be able to utilize the
appeals process.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code
of Ordinances Relating to Rental Housing Licensing to Clarify the Administrative Appeal
Process.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs stated that Officer Mike Pollitz died suddenly last week and a memorial
service was held yesterday at the high school. He thanked the City of Edina, the City of
Hopkins, and the Sheriff’s Department for their assistance in covering the Police
Department’s duties to allow officers to attend Officer Pollitz’s memorial service. He
also thanked the School District for its help in hosting the service. He extended the
City’s sincere condolences to Officer Pollitz’s family.
Councilmember Santa stated that a fund has been established for the benefit of Officer
Pollitz’s children and City staff can provide information on where to make contributions.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 12, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Julia
Ross (arrived at 6:05).
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Paul Omodt.
Staff Present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Organizational Development Coordinator
(Ms. Gothberg).
Others Present: J. Forrest, Consultant; and Councilmembers-elect Jake Spano and Steve Hallfin.
2. Closed Executive Session
The City Council met in closed executive session to conduct the City Manager
evaluation.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 19, 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 Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code – Rental Housing Licensing.
RECOMMNEDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
clarifying the administrative appeal process for rental housing licensing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None
BACKGROUND:
Council approved the First Reading of the ordinance on December 5, 2011 relating to the
administrative appeal process for rental housing licensing.
The attached ordinance further clarifies the administrative appeal process available to the
licensee of rental property when a Notice of Violation requiring termination of tenant(s) due to a
crime free/drug free lease violation or repeated disorderly use violations has been issued.
EFFECTIVE DATES: Proposed ordinance amendment goes into effect 15 days after publication.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of City Code – Rental Housing Licensing
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
RELATING TO RENTAL HOUSING LICENSING TO
CLARIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 8-331 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the
following subsection:
The owner may appeal the Notice of Violation of the Subsection (c) Crime Free/Drug
Free lease language or the Subsection (f) Notice of Disorderly Use Violation by making a
written request to the City Manager for a hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of the
Notice.
SECTION 2. Section 8-332 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
The owner may appeal the imposition of the fee to the City Manager or designee by
making a written request for a hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of the Notice of
Imposition of the administrative fee.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading December 5, 2011
Second Reading December 19, 2011
Date of Publication December 29, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect January 13, 2012
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2011, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
ATTEST: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
__________________________________ By:_______________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
Meeting Date: December 19, 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:
Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, and Fund Closings
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers, operating transfers, and fund
closings.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Fund Equity Transfers
Does the Council concur with the staff recommendation on the level of fund balance within the
General Fund after the transfer to the Benefits Administration Fund and the Park & Recreation
Fund?
Operating Transfers
Does the Council concur with the staff recommendation to reallocate the 2011 property tax
distribution by transferring $100,000 f rom the Pavement Management Fund to the Capital
Replacement Fund in accordance with the Long Range Financial Management Plan?
Fund Closings
Does Council concur with the staff recommendation to close certain funds thereby maintaining
as few funds as legally required and necessary for sound business practices?
BACKGROUND:
Equity Transfers
As per the December 31, 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the unassigned
fund balance in the General Fund was $10,399,401, which was equal to 44.6% of the 2011
budgeted expenditures. The City’s Fund Balance Policy states that we will strive to maintain a
fund balance in the General Fund that is within a range of 35% to 50% of the following year’s
budgeted expenditures, and that any amount greater than 40% can be transferred to other funds.
The City’s policy follows the Office of the State Auditor’s recommended fund balance
guidelines.
At the end of 2011, Staff anticipates that the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund will
increase to approximately $11.4 million. The General Fund expenditure budget for 2012, as
presented at the December 5, 2011, Truth-in-Taxation meeting, totals approximately $23.4
million. As a result, the projected end of year unassigned fund balance in the General Fund
would be approximately 48.8% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Therefore, it is
recommended that an equity transfer from the General Fund of $900,000 be made in 2011, with
$850,000 transferred to the Benefits Administration Fund (formerly known at the Employee
Benefits Fund) and $50,000 transferred to the Park & Recreation Fund. Based on previous
budget discussions with Council, the Benefits Administration Fund has long term sustainability
challenges. The $850,000 transfer will help address the short term cash challenges and lessen
the future burden in achieving long term stability. Due to seasonal volatility and unforeseen pool
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, and Fund Closings
repairs that incurred in the Park & Recreation Fund in 2011, the fund is projected to require a
transfer of $50,000 in order to achieve the fund balance policy for this fund and keep the fund
balance relatively stable.
As a r esult of these recommendations, the fund balance within the General Fund would be
projected to be in a range of 44% - 46% of the 2012 budgeted expenditures, depending on 2011
fiscal year end results. Given the nature of the economy and other factors, staff feels maintaining
a fund balance in this range is advisable. A more detailed explanation of the recommended
transfers follows:
Benefits Administration Fund – Transfer in of $850,000:
The Benefits Administration Fund covers expenses such as workers compensation, tuition
reimbursement, unemployment, retirement flex leave payouts, and other employee benefits. This
fund does not have a dedicated funding source; therefore, a temporary solution for this fund has
been a transfer from the General Fund. The fund is projected to have a cash deficit in 2012
which will continue to grow without a permanent long term funding source. In order to work
toward the goal of long term sustainability in this fund, a transfer of $850,000 is recommended
from the General Fund. This is in addition to revenues being moved into this fund as part of the
2012 budget and property tax levy. Moving forward, this transfer will help to maintain a positive
cash position in this fund for the next several years. Even with this infusion of cash, the fund
will still have long term challenges as seen in the attached Long Range Financial Management
Plan.
Park & Recreation Fund – Transfer in of $50,000:
The Park & Recreation Fund is a Special Revenue Fund with seven divisions that provide for all
recreational programs and activities, park maintenance, environmental, and vehicle maintenance.
These activities are funded mainly through a property tax allocation and program user fees. The
City’s fund balance policy for the Park & Recreation Fund is to maintain a fund balance in a
range of 10% – 25% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. As per the December 31,
2010 CAFR, the assigned fund balance was $703,332 or 11.5% of the 2011 budg eted
expenditures. Preliminary projections for 2011 indicate that this fund will require a transfer in of
$50,000 of additional revenue. There have been unforeseen expenditures relating to snow
removal and pool repairs that occurred in 2011. This $50,000 transfer from the General Fund
would help to keep the fund balance in the Park & Recreation Fund within the range stated in the
policy.
Operating Transfers
Staff is also recommending a transfer of $100,000 from the Pavement Management Fund to the
Capital Replacement Fund to reallocate the property tax distribution adopted on December 20,
2010. The effect will result in the Pavement Management Fund property tax allocation being
reduced from $415,000 to $315,000, and the Capital Replacement Fund property tax allocation
increasing from $338,300 to $438,300. This transfer has been reflected in the Long Range
Financial Management Plan and helps the Capital Replacement Fund move toward long term
financial stability without negatively impacting the Pavement Management Fund.
Fund Closings
At the end of each year, Staff determines if there are any funds which are no longer necessary
and should be closed.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, and Fund Closings
At the end of 2011, f our Debt Service Funds and one TIF District can be recommended for
closure. Final payments were made on February 1, 2011, on the 1999 General Obligation Bonds
and on the 2009A Tax Increment Refunding Bonds. The 2000A Louisiana Court Bonds were
refinanced in December 2010, and the old bond issue was paid off in February 2011. Also, the
Hoigaard Village 2006 and 2007 Taxable TIF Notes were refinanced in October 2010 by the
2010A TIF Revenue Bonds and the 2010B TIF Revenue Note. The Trunk Highway 7 Tax
Increment District will decertify on December 31, 2011, and can be closed thereafter.
Staff is recommending that the City Council take formal action to close the following funds after
December 31, 2011:
Fund Number Name
3400 1999 GO Bonds
3610 2000A Louisiana Court Bonds
3835 2009A GOTI Refunding Bonds*
3880 2006-07 Hoigaard Village TIF Notes*
4855 Trunk Highway 7 TIF District*
* Indicates an EDA Fund
As the Trunk Highway 7 TIF District, 2009A GOTI Refunding Bonds, and 2006-07 Hoigaard
Village TIF Notes are funds established for the EDA, staff will also be presenting a resolution
requesting closure of those funds to the EDA for approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions recommended will allow the General Fund to retain a healthy fund balance within
our fund balance policy requirements, and direct resources to other funds where there are
funding challenges.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, &
Fund Closings
Benefits Administration Fund Analysis - Long Range Fin. Mgmt. Plan
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, and Fund Closings
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS, OPERATING
TRANSFERS, AND FUND CLOSINGS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on t ransfers from the General Fund for their
continued operation; and
WHEREAS, operating transfers may be required to reallocate amounts between funds; and
WHEREAS, certain funds are no longer necessary to the operation of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following sums of money
from the General Fund to the designated funds as shown.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
General Fund Benefits Administration Fund $ 850,000
General Fund Park & Recreation Fund $ 50,000
2. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following amount of
property tax revenue from the Pavement Management Fund to the Capital
Replacement Fund.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
Pavement Management Fund Capital Replacement Fund $ 100,000
3. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to close the following funds as shown.
Fund Number Name
3400 1999 GO Bonds
3610 2000A Louisiana Court Bonds
3835 2009A GOTI Refunding Bonds*
3880 2006-07 Hoigaard Village TIF Notes*
4855 Trunk Highway 7 TIF District*
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
Financial Management Plan
Updated December 19, 2011
Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Cash Inflows
Interest Income -$ 50,157$ 34,204$ 22,436$ 10,615$ (1,868)$ (15,246)$ (29,563)$ (44,863)$ (61,192)$ (78,601)$
Property Taxes - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc/Other 59,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In
General Fund 850,000 100,024 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Total Cash Inflows 909,000 210,181 164,204 152,436 140,615 128,132 114,754 100,437 85,137 68,808 51,399
Cash Outflows
Public Safety Disabilitant Ins 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$
Self Ins Costs- Sedgwick 90,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
HOM Claims 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Unemployment 75,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
General Professional Services 51,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000
Tuition Reimbursement 55,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Estimated Cash Outflows
Flex Payout to VEBA 41,000 45,000 49,000 53,000 57,000 61,000 65,000 69,000 73,000 77,000 81,000
Retiree Payouts 91,486 245,000 108,150 111,395 114,736 118,178 121,724 125,375 129,137 133,011 137,001
Other Separations (non-retiree)20,536 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 92,241 95,008 97,858
Total Cash Outflows 467,022$ 609,000$ 458,400$ 447,962$ 452,691$ 462,592$ 472,669$ 482,929$ 493,377$ 504,019$ 514,859$
Net Change in Cash 441,978 (398,819) (294,196) (295,526) (312,076) (334,460) (357,916) (382,493) (408,240) (435,211) (463,460)
Cash Balance- Beginning 811,937 1,253,915 855,096 560,899 265,373 (46,703) (381,162) (739,078) (1,121,571) (1,529,811) (1,965,022)
Cash Balance - Ending 1,253,915 855,096 560,899 265,373 (46,703) (381,162) (739,078) (1,121,571) (1,529,811) (1,965,022) (2,428,482)
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Operating Transfers, and Fund Closings Page 5
Meeting Date: December 19, 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:
Traffic Study Number 631: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions on the 6000 Block of
37th Street West.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing “10 Minute Parking” restrictions on the 6000 block of
37th Street West.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize the installation of the parking restrictions as noted in
this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request to change a “No Parking” area to “10 Minute Parking” on the
south side of 37th Street West, just west of Alabama Avenue (see attached map). This is adjacent
to the KidZone Daycare. Currently, parents drop off and pick up their children on Alabama
Avenue, which is a collector street that carries a higher level of traffic. A recent accident led to
the current request, which would move some of the drop offs and pick ups off of Alabama
Avenue and onto 37th Street, which carries less traffic.
City staff finds this request reasonable, and is therefore recommending Council approve the
attached resolution authorizing the installation of “10 Minute Parking” restrictions on the south
side of 37th Street West, from Alabama Avenue South to a point 200 feet to the west. Although
the area is currently posted “No Parking,” we were unable to find the resolution that originally
authorized this restriction, so there is no resolution to rescind.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: TS # 631: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions 6000 Block of 37th Street West
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF “10 MINUTE PARKING” RESTRICTIONS
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 37TH STREET WEST
FROM ALABAMA AVENUE TO A POINT 200 FEET WEST
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 631
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for
installation of parking restrictions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “10 Minute Parking” on the south side of 37th Street West from Alabama Avenue South
to a point 200 feet west.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: TS # 631: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions 6000 Block of 37th Street West
Traffic Study No. 631: Authorize Parking Restrictions
on the 6000 Block of 37th Street West
Proposed “10-minute Parking”
Meeting Date: December 19, 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:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 2530 Lynn Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 2530 Lynn Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN, P.I.D. 31-029-24-13-0072.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Michael Westendorf, owner of the single family residence at 2530 Lynn Avenue South, has requested
the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $4,985.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4 d) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 2530 Lynn Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
2530 LYNN AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 31-029-24-13-0072
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to
authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family
residence located at 2530 Lynn Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $4,985.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 4069 Vernon Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4069 Vernon Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN, P.I.D . 07-028-24-23-0114.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Jeremiah Michels, owner of the single family residence at 4069 Vernon Avenue South, has requested
the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $1,850.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4069 Vernon Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
4069 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-23-0114
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 4069 Vernon Avenue South has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 4069 Vernon Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $1,850.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2904 Virginia Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2904 Virginia Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0070.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
John Hannemann, owner of the single family residence at 2904 Virginia Avenue South, has requested
the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $4,530.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 2904 Virginia Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
2904 VIRGINIA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0070
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 2904 Virginia Avenue South has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 2904 Virginia Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $4,530.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final Payment Resolution – Contract No. 62-10 with Jorgenson Construction Inc. for the MSC Soil
Removal and Disposal Project as part of the MSC Renovation Project 2008-1900.
RECOMMNEDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$24,693 for the Soil Removal and Disposal as part of the MSC Renovation Project 2008-1900.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
During excavation work for the MSC Renovation Project, unexpected debris and petroleum
impacted soils were discovered below grade. Transport and disposal of the materials to a landfill
quickly reduced project contingency funds. The City temporality stored excavated material on
site and applied for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Grant to assist with the cleanup
of the site. The grant was awarded February 2010 for removal and disposal costs up to $534,000.
Bids were received on May 7, 2010 for the soil removal and disposal of impacted soil. The City
Council awarded the contract to Jorgenson Construction Inc. in the amount of $14.65 per ton.
The contract estimated removal of 17,000 cubic yards from the site. A change order included
additional work for restoration of the Creekside Park entrance. The contractor completed the
work at a total cost of $459,187.39. Attached is the final invoice in the amount of $24,693 for
completion of the Creekside Park entrance.
A subcontractor’s filing for bankruptcy prevented a lien waiver from being provided at the time
of submittal for final payment. The City Attorney believes the issue is resolved and authorized
the final payment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The funding source for this project is part of the MSC Renovation Project with this contract to be
reimbursed through the Hennepin County Environmental Response Grant.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Invoice
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution –Contract 62-10 MSC Soil Removal and Disposal Project
RESOLUTION NO 11- ____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK FOR THE
MSC SOIL REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL AS PART OF THE MSC
RENOVATION PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 2008-1900
CONTRACT NO. 62-10
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 9, 2010, Jorgenson Construction,
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the removal and disposal of soil at the MSC per Contract
No. 62-10.
2. The Director of Inspections has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor’s receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $14.65/ton
Payment 1 $116,975.71
Payment 2 $228,153.24
Payment 3 $ 89,365.44
Total Previous Payments $434,494.39
Final Payment $ 24,693.00
Total Project Cost $459,187.39
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council December 19, 2011:
___________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution –Contract 62-10 MSC Soil Removal and Disposal Project Page 3
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution –Contract 62-10 MSC Soil Removal and Disposal Project Page 4
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution –Contract 62-10 MSC Soil Removal and Disposal Project Page 5
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reappoint the following Commissioners as city representatives to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term Expiration
Susan Bloyer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2014
James Gainsley Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2014
Henry Solmer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2014
William MacMillan Fire Civil Service Commission 12/31/2014
Jeff Mueller Human Rights Commission 12/31/2014
Joseph Glaab Human Rights Commission 12/31/2014
George Foulkes Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
Tom Worthington Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
Claudia Johnston-Madison Planning Commission 12/31/2014
Carl Robertson Planning Commission 12/31/2014
Steve Hansen Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
Rashmi Seneviratne Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
Bill Theobald Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
Brice Browning Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2014
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to reappoint the Commissioners listed above to serve another term to their
respective Commissions?
BACKGROUND:
The terms of the regular Commissioners listed above expire on December 31, 2011.
Commissioners whose terms are ending complete and submit a form stating why they wish to be
reappointed. Staff liaisons have been consulted and the Commissioners listed above have indicated
they wish to be reappointed to a new three year term. Reappointment status forms are on file in
the City Clerk’s office should Councilmembers wish to review the information.
Commission Vacancies
Staff will continue to advertise the following commission vacancies on our website, Patch website,
and other publications including the Sun Sailor newspaper:
Commission Vacancy Terms
Charter Commission 1 4 year term
(appointed by Judge)
Human Rights Commission 3 3 year term
Human Rights Commission
Youth Commissioner non-voting
1 1 year term
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
Commission Vacancy Terms
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 2 3 year term
Planning Commission Youth commissioner 1 1 year term
Police Advisory Commission 3 3 year term
Telecommunications Advisory Commission 1 3 year term
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
Youth Commissioner
1 1 year term
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards
and Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of
being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 25, 2011 through December
9, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
225.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
225.00
105.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES301 APPAREL
105.00
1,050.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEA.M.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP
21,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
19,950.00
1,348.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
1,348.26
14,614.40GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
14,614.40
660.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAE2S
660.00
15,631.60REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
15,631.60
38.18OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
38.18
16,255.68-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES INC
325,113.60GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
308,857.92
33,574.49GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIALEX AIR APPARATUS INC
33,574.49
317.50BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
317.50
1,118.22-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION
22,364.49MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
21,246.27
355.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMERICAN MASONRY RESTORATION
7,100.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,745.00
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
78.72POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.72
780.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAMERICAN TEST CENTER INC
780.00
69.18GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
68.78PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
43.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
38.99ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
452.35
922.60IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARC
922.60
400.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA BUILD
400.00
34.21E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONEAT&T
34.21
194.70PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO PLUS
194.70
131.58GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
131.58
22,634.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBARR ENGINEERING CO
22,634.30
14.43PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBATTERIES PLUS
14.43
120.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSBIOCYCLE
120.00
178.71ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
178.71
185.35INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
185.35
33.72PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
33.72
5,451.38GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
5,451.38
1,089.50-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEBROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION
21,790.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
20,700.50
1,710.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECAMVAC USA
1,710.00
3,856.12-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECAPITAL CITY GLASS INC
77,122.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
73,266.38
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCAREY, JOSEPH
1,500.00
19.05SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
19.05
10,366.66EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,366.66
1,020.66BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCHEM SYSTEMS LTD
1,020.66
585.50WESTWOOD G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCHUX SCREEN PRINTING
585.50
103.10-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
916.59-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
32.80ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
315.95ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
13.73ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
35.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,008.91ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
419.58HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
150.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
40.18HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
392.90HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
141.44COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
77.11IT G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
178.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
309.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
210.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
359.74FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
837.14GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
81.46POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
238.65POLICE G & A TRAINING
15.01POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
62.16ERUTRAINING
3,711.41Justice Assistance Grant -2005 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
599.49OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
567.30OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
170.00OPERATIONSTRAINING
1,405.29OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
59.95-INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
470.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,310.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,210.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
202.19-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
9.69ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
5.00-ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
618.18ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
11.84SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,256.45HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.36PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
337.29SOCCERGENERAL SUPPLIES
53.57PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
100.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
67.68WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
946.18HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
443.42INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
104.58-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
19.30VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
275.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
4.05-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
62.99TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING
334.20-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
5,195.38GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
22,157.39
4,360.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICLEARWATER RECREATION
4,360.50
1,024.56CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1,024.56
16,690.49ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
16,690.49
812.30PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
16,596.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17,409.08
833.41SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
833.41
1,399.56DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
1,399.56
1,833.84-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECROSSROAD CONSTRUCTION INC
36,676.90GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
34,843.06
22,267.22WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
22,267.22
9.58FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
501.51GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
511.09
2,922.28GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDC MANAGEMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
2,922.28
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9,189.77INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
9,189.77
8,767.51GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
8,767.51
600.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDOERING, RENEE
600.00
113.10BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDRENNEN, CASEY
113.10
787.50ESCROWSANDERSON BUILDERSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
427.50ESCROWSBADER DEV/ELLIPSE APTS
630.00ESCROWS
855.00GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,700.00
1,924.69OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSEMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC
1,924.69
822.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
1,133.10GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,955.43
450.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGEMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
450.00
2,448.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
2,448.00
34,667.88SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,667.88
176.85WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEVANS, KEITH
176.85
768.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
40.19GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
809.13
10.95GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
488.78SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
499.73
50.56POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
50.56
138.08WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSFERGUSON WATERWORKS
930.37WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,068.45
1,096.10OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
1,096.10
19.97-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFIRE SAFETY EDUCATION
310.37OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
290.40
109.01BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
109.01
318.81PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
318.81
715.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
419.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
57.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
3,842.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,033.62
11.16PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESFRANKLIN COVEY
11.16
196.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEGENERAL SPRINKLER CORP
3,920.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
3,724.00
95.09OPERATIONSTRAININGGLAPA, SHAWN
95.09
4,262.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,262.60
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
388.61TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEGOLUCH, MARK
388.61
267.19ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGRAFIX SHOPPE
267.19
78.35PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSGRAINGER INC, WW
608.99PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
134.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
888.27WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
435.20WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
516.47SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
2,661.58
924.05STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
924.05
337.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
337.00
936.47WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
936.47
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWGRUPA, MARK
1,000.00
30.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSHAGEN, DENNIS
30.00
11,925.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHARMON INC
11,925.00
6,550.65WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
6,550.65
84.60WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
70.89WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
50.00FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
205.49
225.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
225.00
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
83.50ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
83.50
3,735.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
180.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
5,658.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,658.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,662.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,893.48
215.87GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
215.87
315.75TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEHOLLENHORST, THOMAS
315.75
115.21ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
80.37ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
89.32SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.35SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
287.25
77.14ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
77.14
40.37INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWARD, JENNA
40.37
464.88WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
464.88
93.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
93.94
125.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSICC
125.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
4,921.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
5,171.00
1,029.42SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTSINDELCO
1,029.42
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWINNOVATIVE RESOURCE GROUP
6,000.00
2,785.25HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIPMA-HR
2,785.25
37.96GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
28.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
66.56
86.57WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
86.57
20.00POLICE G & A LICENSESKAMPA, MARK
20.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
36.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
2,790.00ESCROWS
2,826.00
1,022.00-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEKEYS WELL DRILLING CO
20,440.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
19,418.00
28.56NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIRCHNER, TODD
28.56
2,782.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEKLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC
2,782.70
7,260.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
7,260.50
4,164.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKRIS ENGINEERING INC
4,164.64
500.00BASKETBALLPROGRAM REVENUEKROCKAK, JIM
500.00
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
100.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLANG, LISA
100.00
560.68RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
217.24BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
777.92
144.98GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
144.98
23,633.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
23,633.00
101,584.75UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
101,584.75
1,799.90GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGELINDSTROM ENVIRONMENTAL INC
1,799.90
50.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAININGLOCAL 49 TRAINING PROGRAM
50.00
20,000.00E-911 PROGRAM OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTLOFFLER COMPANIES
20,000.00
458.85FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
458.85
320.63GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
320.63
40.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
40.92
703.22HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP
703.22
332.06INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
332.06
26.81TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENTMCHUGH, JOHN T
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
26.81
1,259.66PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESMERIT ELECTRIC COMPANY
1,259.66
220.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
220.00
4,437.70INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
292,430.91SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
296,868.61
1,295.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
1,295.00
151.62EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
151.62
21,558.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,558.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
554.56SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
554.56
70.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
40.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSES
70.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
180.00
4,273.75-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEMOLIN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO
85,475.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
81,201.25
868.72PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
868.72
26.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
26.24
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
688.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
688.00
8.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMYERS TIRE SUPPLY CO
8.34
5,900.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGENAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SE
118,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
112,100.00
132.53ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
63.35SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
630.77PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
32.51GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
31.94GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
891.10
4,986.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
5,244.75SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,208.25SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,937.25SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,376.25
104.40INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALNELSON ELECTRIC
104.40
216.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
216.71
104.45ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
129.11HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
412.26RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
77.88ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
155.68FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
373.09EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
897.15POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
403.47OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
104.45INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
306.61ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
509.80PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
141.77PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
300.05ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
268.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
109.79ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
232.70WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
70.71REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
105.69VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
413.42WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
220.33SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
17.49SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
5,353.95
9,559.30STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGENORTHWEST ASPHALT CORP
549.86-CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,009.44
145.04WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNORTON, LAURA
145.04
206.29WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNOZNESKY, JUSTIN
206.29
176.31NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNUMELIN, KATHY
176.31
345.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
345.29
148.19WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
148.19
29.94POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
959.61OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
54.15PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
369.39ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,413.09
425.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEOMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC
8,500.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
8,075.00
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
166.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
166.50
283.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARK THEATER COMPANY
283.00
80.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
80.75
400.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARTY UNIT
200.00SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
90.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSEN, CHRISTA
90.00
28.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPETTY CASH
30.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
58.00
38.09WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
30.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
17.34WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
11.97FAMILY PROGRAMS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
15.59HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.99
160.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSPOLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORU
160.00
216.13INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESPOLK, MARLA
811.27INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,027.40
90.00PATROLLICENSESPOST BOARD
90.00
167.03REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOTTER APTS
167.03
150.00BASKETBALLPROGRAM REVENUEPRAGER, DUSTIN
150.00
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,730.96WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
1,529.85SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,734.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
6,995.06
42.94VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
42.94
89.79POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
23.15ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
112.94
2,673.78FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,081.95REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
986.46SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,742.19
121.06WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRAWLINGS, DIANE
121.06
300.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSRECYCLING ASSOC OF MN
300.00
13.71POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
20.86PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
34.57
40.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSESRICH, TED
40.00
187.97PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRIGID HITCH INC
187.97
3,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSALMELA, PAUL
3,000.00
282.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSAURER, MARTI
282.00
341.25-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP
6,825.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,483.75
87.08WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSCHOESS, ALDEN
87.08
46,883.80PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
81,386.46CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
21,780.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150,358.26
3,847.50TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDS
3,847.50
81.63PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
81.63
198.79GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
198.79
630.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSIMPSON CO INC, M.E.
630.00
75.00POLICE G & A TRAININGSOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAI
25.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
25.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
125.00
61,005.58CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
61,005.58
888.00HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC
888.00
156.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
156.00
32,640.85-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGESTEENBERG-WATRUD CONSTRUCTION
652,817.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
620,176.15
144.20NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEWART, STACEY
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144.20
55.58POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
95.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
151.03
40.04ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
40.04
12.71POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
16.15POLICE G & A TRAINING
28.86
56.76ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
56.76
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
45.96ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
56.45HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.55COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
42.64IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
35.66ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
69.58FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
115.75COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
123.78POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
78.55OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
59.11INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
44.59PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
58.53ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.58ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.46REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.97HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,989.33EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,958.19
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
593.05-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGETHURNBECK STEEL FABRICATION IN
11,861.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
11,267.95
975.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTRAVIS, SHAWN
975.00
11.32PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
11.32
2,320.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTRUSIGHT
2,320.00
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEUITTENBOGAARD, MELISSA
215.00
63.91VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESULINE
63.91
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
309.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
309.00
1,700.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
1,700.00
1,950.47TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
1,950.47
102.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTUS HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
102.00
135.94WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
135.94
307.90HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
307.90
4,467.62WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,467.62
129.32ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
129.32
1,244.75VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.72COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,318.47
403.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEVIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
403.00
27.74PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
27.74
83.90WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
186.18SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
270.08
14.98ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVOSS, CAROLINE
14.98
64.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWALDOCH
64.00
3,250.00ESCROWSGENERALWALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
3,250.00
1,333.35CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
9.00-CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,324.35
9,342.65ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
686.50MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
10,029.15
18.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSEWOMEN IN LEISURE SERVICES
18.00
367.70WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWORRELL, CLAUDE
367.70
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
12/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:44:26R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
12/9/2011 -11/25/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
106.88BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
106.88
333.01FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
366.88WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,336.03ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,277.15GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
18.79OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
986.22STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
123.97OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
16,442.05
624.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSXTERIOR XPERTS
624.00
110.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
110.48
2,950.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEZINTL INC
59,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
56,050.00
Report Totals 2,556,614.42
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
Meeting Date: December 19, 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:
Ellipse on E xcelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping
Easement (Case No. 11-33-VAC).
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
• Mayor to close public hearing.
• Motion to Adopt the First Reading of an Ordinance vacating a landscaping easement for
the Ellipse II on Excelsior redevelopment and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for
January 17, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there a need to maintain the easement?
BACKGROUND:
Bader Development requests vacation of a landscaping easement to accommodate the Ellipse II
on Excelsior development plan. Easement vacations are approved by ordinance. The vacation
requires a public hearing before the council and a second reading at a future council meeting.
The City acquired an easement for
landscaping on t he property at 3924
Excelsior Boulevard in 1997 as part of
the Excelsior Boulevard streetscape
improvements. The easement is 8 feet
wide and 54 feet long and lies between
the sidewalk and the parking lot. A
raised planter lies within the easement
and helps buffer the parking lot from
the sidewalk. The easement gives the
City the right to maintain the
landscaping. The St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority
now owns the property, so the
easement is not currently necessary for
the City to access the property.
The proposed Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) redevelopment will change the character of the site,
screen surface parking form the street, place building entrances close to the sidewalk, and
provide privately maintained landscaping between the building and sidewalk. With construction
of the e2 project the landscaping easement is no longer needed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing & First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Landscaping Easement
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing & First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Landscaping Easement
ORDINANCE NO.____-11
AN ORDINANCE VACATING LANDSCAPING EASEMENT
3924 Excelsior Boulevard
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 landscaping easement proposed to be vacated has been
duly filed. T he notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on
December 8, 2011 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and
has determined that the easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best
interest of the public that said easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described landscaping easement as now dedicated and laid
out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That particular perpetual easement for landscaping purposes originally dedicated
in Document Number 6743421, Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as follows:
A strip of land 8.00 feet in width over that part of the following described tract of
land, the Southeasterly line of which is a line drawn parallel with and distant
52.00 feet Northwesterly of the centerline of Excelsior Ave., as delineated on the
plat of “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota,” said tract being
described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6,
Township 28, R ange 24 described as commencing at the intersection of the
southwesterly line of the plat of MINIKAHDA OAKS, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA” with a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet northwesterly from the
centerline of Excelsior Ave., as delineated on said plat; thence southwesterly
parallel with said centerline and its southwesterly extension 170 feet to the actual
point of beginning; thence continuing southwesterly along said parallel line
166.30 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence northeasterly at
right angles 166.30 f eet; thence southeasterly at right angles to the point of
beginning.
Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from a line drawn parallel with and
distant 44.77 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly line of the above described
tract of land to a line drawn parallel with and distant 90.77 feet Northeasterly of
said Southwesterly line of the above described tract.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing & First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Landscaping Easement
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading December 19, 2011
Second Reading January 17, 2012
Date of Publication January 26, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect February 10, 2012
Meeting Date: December 19, 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:
Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat and subdivision variance for
ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR, subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the rear yard and side yard setback variances for e2,
subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary planned unit development (PUD) for
e2, subject to conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the proposed redevelopment of the former American Inn
property?
BACKGROUND:
Ellipse on Excelsior is a five-story, mixed-use building with 132 r esidential apartments and
16,394 square feet of commercial uses on the ground floor. The development opened in 2010
and replaced Anderson Cleaners and Al’s Bar. Both the residential and commercial spaces are
fully leased.
Adjacent to Ellipse on Excelsior is the former American Inn hotel property. The St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased the American Inn hotel and demolished the
building in 2009 in preparation for redevelopment. The EDA currently leases the lot to Bader
Development for parking purposes.
Bader Development proposes a second phase to the Ellipse on Excelsior development on the
former American Inn property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard. T he proposed Ellipse II on
Excelsior (“e2”) redevelopment is a f ive-story, 58-unit apartment building with structured
underground and at-grade parking. The proposed second phase does not include commercial
uses.
The e2 redevelopment will be a separate project and separate PUD from the neighboring Ellipse
on Excelsior development. However, the two developments need to be coordinated to present a
unified environment. The two developments will share a driveway access and e2 will include
excess parking stalls that can be used by the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial uses.
Process:
City Council
There are several zoning and subdivision approvals required from City Council for the proposed
development to proceed. They include:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
1. A preliminary plat that would reduce the size of the Ellipse on Excelsior lot and increase
the size of the e2 lot
2. A subdivision variance to reduce the front easement from 10 feet to 4 feet.
3. A rear yard variance from 25 feet to 5.5 feet
4. A side yard setback variance from 56 feet to 6 feet
5. A preliminary PUD for e2 to approve modifications to the density, ground floor area,
floor area ratio, and building setbacks
6. Vacation of an existing landscaping easement (First Reading)
The above actions have been condensed into three resolutions for City Council consideration
on December 19, 2011. In addition to the above actions, the following actions are also
required and tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on January 17, 2012:
7. Major Amendment to the Final PUD of Ellipse on Excelsior
a. The proposed lot line change (see #1 above) results in a density increase and
reduced building setback on the Ellipse on Excelsior, which need to be reflected
in the PUD documents
b. The 22 of f-site parking spaces provided in the e2 development will be
acknowledged in the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD documents
8. Final plat
9. Final PUD for e2, that is consistent with the preliminary PUD
10. Vacation of an existing landscaping easement (Second Reading)
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission viewed the concept plan at a study session on September 21, 2011.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications on November 16, 2011. A
copy of the meeting minutes is attached for your information. Several residents spoke at the
meeting. T he concerns stated at the meeting primarily related to the parking and lighting
concerns at the existing Ellipse on Excelsior development. The restaurant at Ellipse on Excelsior
uses the proposed e2 property for valet parking, so there is concern about the loss of off-site
parking for the restaurant. There were also concerns about headlights shining into houses as cars
enter and exit the parking lot at Ellipse on Excelsior and the possibility of the same also
happening at e2.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications, but added conditions that
screening at the end of driveways be improved on both sites to reduce the impact on neighboring
houses.
The Planning Commission will be asked to review the final plat and final PUD applications for
e2. That meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 4, 2011.
Neighborhood
The developer had an informational meeting and invited residents in the Minikahda Oaks and
Minikahda Vista neighborhoods. Approximately 12 neighbors attended the meeting. T he
parking concern was the dominate issue discussed.
Neighbors in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood are also talking with Public Works about a
probable request to extend permit parking restrictions farther north along France Avenue to deter
commercial customers from parking on the street.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Existing Conditions:
Current Zoning: High Density Multiple Family
Residential (RC)
Comprehensive Plan: High Density Multiple Family
(RH)
Parcel Size: 0.725 acres
Adjacent Uses:
West: Minikahda Court Apartments
North: Minikahda Court Apartments, Bass Lake Park
East: Ellipse on Excelsior, France Av.
South: Excelsior Blvd., gas station, offices
The existing property is covered with nearly 100% impervious surface. The hotel building was
built up to the north, east, and west property lines and the remainder of the lot was surface
parking. Modest improvements to landscaping in the front of the property were made by the
City through the Excelsior Boulevard streetscape project with above ground planters in the
1990s. The site has contaminated soils due to fill material imported for a previous development
and petroleum from underground fuel tank(s). The underground tanks have since been removed.
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
The proposed e2 site is unplatted property. In order to redevelop the property, the City Code
requires the lot to be platted. The ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR plat satisfies this requirement.
The preliminary plat also proposes to transfer an 11-foot wide strip of land from the Ellipse on
Excelsior property to the e2 parcel. This increases the area of the e2 parcel from 0.725 acres to
0.773 acres, and it decreases the area of the Ellipse on Excelsior parcel from 2.216 acres to 2.168
acres.
Utility Easements
When platting a new lot, the City Code generally requires general purpose drainage and utility
easements around the perimeter of the lot. Standard easements are five feet wide on interior lot
lines and 10 f eet wide along public right-of-way. In the case of the ELLIPSE II ON
EXCELSIOR preliminary plat, a more tailored approach is needed.
The ELLIPSE II ON E XCELSIOR preliminary plat provides several easements beyond the
standard requirements. The preliminary plat maintains two existing easements that are
noteworthy. The first is an easement over sanitary and storm sewers located beneath the
common driveway between Ellipse and e2. The second is a 2-foot wide easement along the front
lot line (the south property along Excelsior Boulevard) for drainage, utility and walkway
purposes.
There is an existing lift station control panel on the southeast corner of the e2 site. T he
preliminary plat proposes to dedicate an easement around this existing utility equipment. The
preliminary plat would also add a 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and
north lot lines. The plat would also add a 4-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the
front lot line; however, this is six feet narrower than normally required along the front lot line.
Bader Development requests a subdivision variance to reduce the drainage and utility easement
provided along Excelsior Boulevard from 10 feet to four (4) feet.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Subdivision Variance Analysis
The proposed apartment building is built 10 feet from the front lot line, but includes stairways
and ADA accessible ramps that extend to within 5 f eet of the property line. T he reduced
easement width will accommodate the building foundations and entry stairways and ramps. This
type of variance is relatively common and justified if the applicant demonstrates the easement is
not needed.
Hennepin County has jurisdiction over Excelsior Boulevard and provided a letter to the City
indicating the County does not object to the variance. The Public Works Department and City
Engineer also reviewed the application and do not object to the variance.
Staff supports granting the variances based on the following findings:
1. Granting the variances is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Redevelopment plans for this site call for the building to be 10 feet from the front property
line. The building placement is consistent with the development guidelines endorsed by the
neighborhood (France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines), the
established Ellipse on Excelsior building, and the established character of the commercial
corridor. The proposed building placement and entrances oriented to the street support the
desired pedestrian environment and provides convenient access from the sidewalk to the
building. The stairways, footings and foundations would encroach upon the required 10-foot
wide easement.
2. Granting a variance from 10 feet to four (4) feet will not impair the ability to accommodate
needed utilities to serve the development. The present road right-of-way accommodates
existing and relocated utilities. The additional 6 feet of easement would be unnecessary.
Hennepin County has jurisdiction over this roadway and provided a letter to the City
indicating the County does not object to the variance.
3. A similar conditions exist on the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development and the City
granted a similar variance for that development.
4. Providing the full 10 feet of easement would impact the provision of underground parking
spaces on the site that are important to the success of the project.
5. Granting the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the
community.
ZONING ANALYSIS:
The following analysis concentrates on the new apartment building at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
and the RC – High Density Multiple Family Residence district standards. The proposal meets
most requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Modifications to the standards may be approved
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, there are variances requested from the rear
yard and side yard requirements. The zoning compliance table on the following page provides a
summary of the zoning requirements.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Zoning Compliance Table.
Architectural Design
Description
The proposed building is five stories (60 feet) tall. On the Excelsior Boulevard elevation, the second
through fifth floors step back from the first floor elevation to improve the pedestrian-scale of the
building. The building materials and design are consistent with Ellipse on Excelsior. Five units on
the along Excelsior Boulevard elevation are loft units spanning the fourth and fifth floors.
Materials
Building materials include stone, brick, stucco, glass, copper siding, stucco panel veneer, and
cast stone. The ratio varies on each building elevation, but every elevation has at least 60% class
I materials as required by City Code. The front elevation has the highest percentage of class I
materials (99%). Overall the building provides 71% class I materials, and 29 percent class II
materials. The development meets and exceeds the City Code requirements.
Factor Allowed/Required Proposed Met?
Use High Density Multiple
Family Residence
58-unit apartment building Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres, unless it is a
project of superior design
or achieves greater
compliance with
comprehensive plan goals
and policies
0.773 acres (e2)
Yes
Density 75 units/acre with a PUD 75 units/acre (e2) Yes
Height 6 stories or 75 feet 5 stories, 60 feet Yes
Off-Street
Parking
62 stalls (e2) 104 stalls (e2), including 22 stalls set
aside for Ellipse on Excelsior
commercial uses
Yes
Front Yard None required with a PUD 10 feet
(6 feet to stairs/accessible ramp)
Yes
Rear Yard 25 feet 5.5 feet – 6 feet; variance requested No
Side Yard (East) None required with a PUD 30 feet – 90 feet Yes
Side Yard (West) 56 feet 6 feet – 20 feet; variance requested No
Floor Area Ratio None with a PUD 2.0 Yes
Ground Floor
Area Ratio
0.30 with a PUD 0.30 Yes
D.O.R.A. 4,041 square feet (12%) 4,159 square feet or 12.4% (e2) Yes
Landscaping 58 trees 45 trees Yes
559 shrubs 226 shrubs, 479 perennials
Alternative landscaping Rooftop patio (615 square feet) and
an at-grade patio off the
lobby/lounge
Stormwater Required city and
watershed standards
Stormwater management is provided
underground
Yes
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Parking
Access
Access to the site will be directly from Excelsior Boulevard. This is a shared driveway with the
Ellipse on Excelsior development. The shared driveway has full access to Excelsior Boulevard
(left and right turns are allowed. There is a dedicated left turn lane from eastbound Excelsior
Boulevard. An existing driveway on the west side of the site will be closed as part of the
redevelopment.
Design
The plan provides a combination of underground garage parking, surface parking covered by the
building (“commercial parking”), and uncovered surface parking. A summary of the parking
supplied in both the e2 and Ellipse on Excelsior developments is attached for your information.
The underground garage contains 74 parking stalls. Sixteen of the 73 parking stalls are tandem
stalls. Ten of the 73 stalls are designated compact parking stalls. Three of the 73 stalls are ADA
accessible, including one van accessible stall. The parking garage would be used by e2 apartment
residents. Parking stalls would be assigned to individual units. Tandem parking would be
assigned to roommates/couples.
Nine uncovered surface parking stalls are provided near e2’s north lobby entrance, including one
ADA accessible stall. These stalls are intended to be used primarily by e2 visitors and guests.
There are 22 parking stalls provided in a covered surface parking area. Five of the 22 parking
stalls are tandem stalls. T hese stalls are being built to mitigate the peak parking demand
generated by commercial uses in the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development. Similar to
current operations, Bader Development anticipates a valet parking service for the restaurant
would park customer vehicles in the e2 commercial parking area.
Quantity
The zoning code requires 1 parking stall per bedroom for multiple family residential buildings.
The e2 development has 62 bedrooms. The plan provides a total of 105 parking stalls.
Even without the 22 commercial parking stalls and without the 16 tandem parking stalls in the
underground garage, the e2 plan supplies more than the 62 parking stalls required by the zoning
code. Therefore, staff finds the plan meets and exceeds the zoning code requirements. Staff also
finds that the 22 commercial parking stalls are genuinely surplus parking that can alleviate the
pressure on parking during peak hours of demand at Ellipse on Excelsior.
Walker Parking Study
An update to the Ellipse on Excelsior parking demand study was required by the City as part of
the application (see attached report). Walker Parking Consultants confirm that Bader
Development and Stevens-Scott Management have implemented the parking management plan
for Ellipse on Excelsior as required by the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD. This time Walker Parking
Consultants had the benefit of actual parking counts to adjust the parking model. Parking counts
were taken on the evening of Friday, October 28, 2011. The Walker Parking Consultants report
concludes that the proposed parking supply at Ellipse on Excelsior and e2 developments together
will satisfy the peak demand of the two developments.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Easement and Parking Management Plan
It is important to ensure that the 22 parking stalls on the e2 site remain available for use by the
Ellipse on Excelsior commercial uses. Staff recommends a condition of approval that all off-site
parking, ingress and egress agreements are protected by permanent and recorded easements.
Staff further recommends a condition of approval that a Parking Management Plan for e2 must
be provided to the City for review and approval, that the Parking Management Plan must be
included as an Official Exhibit to the planning case file, and that any amendments to the Parking
Management Plan and/or practices shall require City approval.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plan provides 12.4% DORA, which meets and exceeds the zoning code requirement. The
DORA includes a rooftop patio, a surface patio off of the lobby/lounge area, sidewalk
connections and adjacent landscaped areas.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan provides 45 of the 58 trees required on the site. It provides 226 of the 559
shrubs required. Also, there are 479 perennial plantings. The plan provides dense landscaping in
the available area. Plantings are concentrated along the perimeter of the site and around the
designed outdoor recreation areas. The plan includes the use of alternative landscaping features,
including a rooftop patio and a patio area off of the lobby/lounge. Staff finds the plan meets the
landscaping requirements.
As recommended by the Planning Commission, the landscaping plan was amended to add five
Black Hills Spruce trees at the north end of the driveway to help mitigate light impacts from
vehicle headlights.
Utilities
The City Engineer reviewed the plans. The utility plans are acceptable with a few modifications.
The plan revisions must be made prior to Final Plat and Final PUD approval.
Stormwater from the site will be stored underground. The proposed system meets the City’s rate
control requirements. T he plan requires review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD).
Export of Soils
An estimated 18,270 cubic yards of contaminated and organic soils must be removed for the
construction. Approximately 1,074 trucks loads will be needed over the course of 30 work days.
The truck route would be from Excelsior Boulevard to Hwy 100.
SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD VARIANCES ANALYSIS:
The required rear (north) yard is 25 feet. The north wall of the structured parking is 5.5 feet
from the property line. However, the 2nd through 5th floors of the building are setback from the
first floor. The north elevation of the building is articulated and ranges from 20 feet to 27 feet
from the north property line. Also, there is a row of existing one-story garages 8 feet from the
property line on the neighboring Minikahda Court Apartments site that block part of the e2
building wall.
The required side (west) yard is 56 feet. The wall of the structured parking is six (6) feet from
the property line. The rest of the first floor and upper floors (the residential units) are 20 feet to
24 feet from the property line. A pool house and existing trees help screen the pool area from the
e2 development.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
The City may grant variances provided certain conditions are met. Listed below are the criteria
and city staff findings.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter would result in
peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the
use district in which such lot is located.
While the site has contaminated soils, has a grade change of seven feet, and must coordinate
with the neighboring Ellipse on E xcelsior development, the uniqueness of the site is
primarily related to the redevelopment guidelines established for the site. The design
guidelines in some cases directly or indirectly conflict with the strict setback provisions of
the zoning ordinance. Such conflicts were expected to be addressed through the PUD process.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in
the use district in which the land is located.
The conditions guiding the development of the subject property are different than other
structures in the district. The City identifies the property as a high priority redevelopment
area. The City worked with the Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods to
establish redevelopment guidelines for the property that do not necessarily follow the zoning
requirements in all respects. The proposed e2 development exhibits the high quality design
contemplated in the guidelines, including quality building materials, edge buffering, and
building articulation. The e2 plan is a second phase of the approved and constructed Ellipse
on Excelsior development, and is expected to present a unified image with the first phase.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Without the proposed variances, the redevelopment goals cannot be met, and the
environmental and economic challenges to redeveloping the property cannot be overcome.
The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant to develop
the property in a manner consistent with community goals.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
Granting the variances will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent
properties. The applicant provided a shadow study that clearly demonstrates the design has
consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings and proves the plan
meets the ordinance requirements.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
The plan achieves the goals and substantially meets the guidelines established for this
specific redevelopment area in the Comprehensive Plan. It addresses the design expectations
at the block, street, site and building scale of the design.
The existing property is covered with nearly 100% impervious surface. The hotel building
was built up to the north, east, and west property lines and the remainder of the lot is surface
parking. The site slopes down seven feet from front to back. The site has impacted soils,
from fill material imported to the site for previous development and petroleum from
underground tank(s).
The proposed redevelopment removes impacted soils, puts the property to its highest and best
use, provides 20% green space, and coordinates with Ellipse on Excelsior’s design, access,
circulation, and parking to provide a unified environment. The development substantially
enhances the aesthetics of the site and continues the revitalization of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter and
the comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France
Avenue as a high priority redevelopment site, including the subject property. The purpose of
the side and rear yard requirements is to be considerate of scale, massing and edge buffering
of both the existing and emerging character of Excelsior Boulevard.
The upper floors of the building step back from the first floor of the building. The upper
floors are articulated, and existing accessory structures on the neighboring parcels diminish
the impact of the proposed building setback variances. Along both yards the e2 landscaping
plan provides rows of perimeter trees and shrubs that also help buffer views of the wall.
Staff finds that the proposed variances are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the ordinance.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or practical difficulty.
The variances do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The applicant has
submitted a very deliberate and high quality design that seeks to meet the requirement of the
ordinance, the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment guidelines, the
established character of its predecessor, Ellipse on Excelsior, and the economic realities of
redeveloping a contaminated and constrained property.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OBJECTIVES:
The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the
proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
The building siting, massing, orientation, façade entrances, sidewalks connections and
landscape features provide integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
The site is served by Metro Transit routes 12 and 114. Route 12 is classified a “frequently
operating transit line” under the Zoning Code. The development maintains the pedestrian-
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
scale streetscape and character of Excelsior Boulevard. The new building will approach and
frame the public realm along Excelsior Boulevard and enhance the links to nearby bus stops.
3. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD.
The purpose of a travel demand management strategy is to spread the number of automobile
trips throughout the day, reducing the negative impacts that occur during peak travel times.
The mixed-use character of the Ellipse on Excelsior and e2 development as a whole satisfies
the travel demand strategies requirement.
4. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter
requirements:
The e2 plan meets the designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) requirement to provide 12%
of the lot area.
5. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The e2 development includes a site plan that provides enhanced gathering spaces, streetscape
elements, upscale apartments, attractive and mostly Class I building materials, and interesting
architectural features.
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The e2 application includes the following PUD modifications:
• Increased residential density from 50 units per acre to 75 units per acre
• Increased Ground Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.30
• Increased Floor Area Ratio from 1.2 to 2.05
• Reduced front yard to allow a 10-foot building setback and five-foot setback for stairways
and ADA accessible ramp
• Reduced side (east) yard to 30 feet
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications on November 16, 2011. A
copy of the minutes is attached for your review.
• The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the ELLIPSE II ON
EXCELSIOR preliminary plat and subdivision variance, subject to the conditions in the
attached resolution.
• The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the rear yard and setback
variances for e2 based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions in the
attached resolution.
• The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD for e2,
subject to conditions in the attached resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat and Subdivision Variance
• Resolution Approving Rear and Side Yard Setback Variances
• Resolution Approving Preliminary PUD
• Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2011
• Walker Parking Study
• Color Illustrations
o Building Renderings
o Ellipse on Excelsior & e2 Site Plan
o Parking Overview for Ellipse on Excelsior and e2
o Shadow Study Summary Table
• Architectural Plans
o AS100 Site Plan
o AS101 Site Uses Plan
o A100 Garage Plan
o A110 First Floor Plan
o A120 Second Floor Plan
o A130 Third Floor Plan
o A140 Fourth Floor Plan
o A150 Fifth Floor Plan
o A200 Building Elevations
o A201 Building Elevations
• Civil Engineering Plans
o C200 Preliminary Plat
o C300 Grading Plan
o C400 Utility Plan
o L100 Landscape Plan
o L200 Landscape Plan
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR
WITH VARIANCE FOR A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Bader Development, subdivider, has submitted an application requesting approval
of a preliminary plat and a variance from the subdivision ordinance (Section 26-154a) for the
front drainage and utility easement in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The land owners include St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (3924
Excelsior Boulevard, PIN 06-028-24-41-0003) and Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (3900 Excelsior
Boulevard, PIN 06-028-24-41-0072).
3. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be consistent with the City Plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of
the City of St. Louis Park.
4. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
5. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land. S uch circumstances arise due to redevelopment and design
objectives for the site. The building is located near the street right-of-way to provide convenient
pedestrian access from the sidewalk to building entrances. Providing the easements would also
negatively impact the provision of underground parking spaces on the site that are important to
the success of the development.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
6. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated.
Granting a variance from 10 feet to four feet will not impair the ability to accommodate needed
utilities to serve the development. The present road right-of-way accommodates existing and
relocated utilities. The granting of the variances will enable a p edestrian-oriented building
design.
7. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from a physical hardship. T he
development requires removal of contaminated and unsuitable soils.
8. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain elements, such
as stormwater management, underground parking, sidewalks, and buildings located close to the
street. Such redevelopment on this site could not occur without a variance.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary plat of Ellipse II on Excelsior and a variance to allow a
reduction in the front drainage and utility easement from 10 feet to four feet is hereby approved
and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and
regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the
following conditions:
a. City Council approves a request to vacate an existing landscape easement
(Doc. No. 6743421);
b Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid prior to the City signing the
Final Plat.
c. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure
cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the
building design and 100% screened from off-site.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owners and subdivider, who are the applicants herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of
this approval.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
A RESOLUTION GRANTING REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES
AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (E2)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Bader Development has applied for two variances from Section 36-167(g)(8)-(11) of the
Zoning Code for the required rear yard and side yards for property located in the R-C
High Density Multiple Family Residential zoning at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard and
legally described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on s aid
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. On November 16, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the
two variances to reduce the rear yard (along the northerly property line) from 25 feet to
5.5 feet and to reduce the side yard (along the westerly property line) from 56 feet to 6
feet.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The development has a very deliberate and high quality design that seeks to meet the
requirement of the ordinance, the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and
redevelopment guidelines, the established character of the neighboring Ellipse on
Excelsior development, and the economic realities of redeveloping a contaminated and
constrained property.
8. The conditions guiding the development of the subject property are different than other
structures in the district. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest corner of
Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue as a high priority redevelopment site, including
the subject property. The proposed redevelopment removes impacted soils, puts the
property to its highest and best use, provides 20% green space, and coordinates with the
design, access, circulation, and parking of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior
development to provide a unified environment.
9. Without the proposed variances, the redevelopment goals cannot be met, and the
environmental and economic challenges to redeveloping the property cannot be
overcome. T he variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the
applicant to develop the property in a manner consistent with community goals.
10. Granting the variances will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent
properties. The applicant provided a shadow study that clearly demonstrates the design
has consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings and proves the
plan meets the ordinance requirements.
11. The plan achieves the goals and substantially meets the guidelines established for this
specific redevelopment area in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed e2 development
exhibits the high quality design contemplated in the guidelines, including quality building
materials, edge buffering, building articulation, and scale at the block, street, site and
building levels.
12. The contents of Planning Case File 11-29-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
13. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
CONCLUSION
The application for a rear yard setback variance from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and a side yard setback
variance from 56 feet to 6 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to
the following condition:
1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the Final PUD and City zoning
code.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19,
2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (“e2”)
WHEREAS, Bader Development proposes to construct a 58-unit apartment building at
3924 Excelsior Boulevard named Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the RC High Density Multiple Family
Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code was received
on October 18, 2011 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the application was mailed to all owners of
property within 350 feet of the subject property, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plans at the meeting of
September 21, 2011, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on November 3, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the public hearing at the meeting of
November 16, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
on a 6-0 vote, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. B ader Development has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development to construct a 58-unit apartment building on property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard,
and legally described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 f eet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. T he City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 11-27-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications include:
a. Increased residential density from 50 units per acre to 75 units per acre.
b. Increased Ground Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.30.
c. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 1.2 to 2.1
d. Reduced front yard to allow a 10-foot building setback, and five-foot setback for
the exterior stairways and ADA accessible ramp.
e. Reduced side (east) yard setback to 30 feet.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 11-27-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Final PUD
official exhibits. A Parking Management Plan shall be included in the official exhibits.
2. The following requirements, as indicated in the official exhibits, shall apply to the PUD:
a. A maximum residential density of 75 units per acre.
b. A maximum of 58 residential units.
c. A maximum of 62 bedrooms.
e. A minimum of 105 parking spaces.
f. A maximum building height of 60 feet.
g. A maximum ground floor area ratio of 0.30.
h. A maximum floor area ratio of 2.05.
i. A minimum front yard of 10 feet for the building and 5 feet for exterior stairs and
ramps (from southerly property line along Excelsior Boulevard).
j. A minimum side yard (from the easterly property line) of 30 feet.
k. Any amendments to the Parking Management Plan and/or practices shall require
City approval.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
3. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. T he
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The following issues have been identified as appropriate to
include in the PUD development agreement:
a. A list of all PUD modifications.
b. A list of public improvements to be installed at Developer’s expense.
c. An irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney protecting the
22 parking stalls to be used by the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial development.
d. A requirement for a performance guarantee in the form of cash or letter of credit
for 125% of the estimated cost of all public improvements, including fire
hydrants, on-street loading bay, street signs, and streetscape improvements along
Excelsior Boulevard, and for the required site landscaping.
e. A maintenance agreement for the Developer to maintain adjacent public
improvements, including the proposed on-street loading bay and streetscape along
Excelsior Boulevard.
f. An agreement for the Developer to continue to pay annual services charges for the
special services district in an amount equal to what would be the amount payable
by the property if it remained a commercial property.
g. A requirement that all trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside
the building.
h. A requirement that utility service structures shall be buried; and if any utility
service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated
into the building design and 100% screened from off-site.
4. The following conditions shall be met prior to starting any land disturbing activities on
the site:
a. City approvals of the Final Plat, Final PUD, rear and side yard variances, and
vacation of landscaping easement (Doc. No. 6743421) shall be secured.
b. Proof of Recording the Final Plat shall be submitted to the City.
c. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the City for review.
d. The assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and owner.
e. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
f. A staging plan for construction shall be filed with the City.
g. A plan to manage parking during construction shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval.
g. All necessary permits must be obtained.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The Developer shall sign the City’s Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
b. Final plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public improvements, and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City
policies.
c. The Developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or
letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public improvements such as
on-street loading area; streetscape, including sidewalks, street lighting,
landscaping; fire hydrant; repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities during
construction; and required site landscaping.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
d. The proposed 22 shared commercial parking stalls shall be protected by an
irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy
of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days of the Final PUD approval.
6. The Developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. Construction shall comply with all City noise ordinances. Construction activity
will be limited to 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. and
10 p.m. Saturdays. T here shall be no construction on S undays or national
holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public
street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the
Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to
ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following shall be completed:
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the Official Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the Official
Exhibits.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
Official Exhibits.
d. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all
such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. Painting of mechanical
equipment shall not be considered screening.
8. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48
hours.
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.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19,
2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Excerpts
Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission
November 16, 2011
3. Hearings
A. Preliminary and Final Plat, Amendment to PUD, Variances
Ellipse II (e2) on Excelsior
Location: 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Bader Development
Case Nos.: 11-28-S, 11-27-PUD, 11-29-VAR
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that a second
phase to the Ellipse on E xcelsior development is being proposed. The “e2”
redevelopment is a five-story, 58-unit apartment building with structured underground
and at-grade parking.
Commissioner Carper said he was concerned about parking. He asked how many spaces
were in the leased area and how many spaces were being used there.
Mr. Walther said there are approximately 50 parking stalls available at the American Inn
site. T he use fluctuates with 50 i n use at peak. H e explained that area has been
designated as valet parking only. Traffic counts by the parking consultant and the owner
indicate that when the valet lot is well used there are still spaces available on the surface
parking lot that could of have been used by customers. Mr. Walther said that neighbors
have noted that people are parking on France Ave. He commented that isn’t necessarily
because there isn’t parking available on the lot.
Commissioner Carper spoke about 28 spaces too few and not knowing what the
occupancy is of other parking available. He said he was concerned that there would be
more parking in the neighborhood with e2.
Scott Froemming, Walker Parking Consultants, said on the day he counted there were a
maximum of 45 cars on the surface lot. At that time there were approximately 80 cars
parked in the Ellipse parking lot, leaving 20 empty stalls in the Ellipse lot, as well as 17
empty stalls underground. An overage on the surface lot could be accommodated on the
Ellipse property.
Mr. Walther spoke about numbers from the parking study for the peak hour, peak day,
peak month (mid-December) which indicated parking provided is over the peak demand
projected and counted on the site.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the tandem spots in the basement. He spoke about
problems often encountered with tandem parking.
Robb Bader, Bader Development, said the tandem spaces will be reserved for couples
and roommates. He said they haven’t encountered problems with tandem parking in their
other properties, and wouldn’t expect any in a 58-unit building. On-site management is
always available should problems occur.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, spoke about the success of the project and now getting
the whole parcel pulled together with the second phase. He discussed valet parking and
the policy to park those cars at far spaces, leaving spaces around the restaurant available.
He said the neighbors have suggested signs indicating parking around the corner at the
development.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Wayne Kesti, 3332 France Ave. S., mentioned positive benefits of the development. He
said the challenge has been integration into the neighborhood. He said where there is
development adjacent to existing single family homes it is an issue for the entire city, not
just Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista.
He said this is a suburban community, not an urban community. There are 75 kids within
77 homes in the neighborhood. He stated he was concerned that the city wasn’t providing
move-up housing and equity amongst all homeowners and property taxpayers, though it
professed to do so in its strategic documents and Vision.
Mr. Kesti stated that people are parking on France when they don’t see available parking
or don’t want to pay for valet parking. He said these are encroachment issues the
neighborhood was concerned about from the beginning and these are issues on a regular
basis. Mr. Kesti said 8-10 vehicles parked on France Ave. on a night is very common.
There are discussions with city staff about expanding permit parking which is really the
only option. He stated these are urban issues that have been created in St. Louis Park, a
suburban community.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Kesti if Ellipse residents are becoming part of the
neighborhood and if there were any other issues besides parking.
Mr. Kesti said the residents are great. He said his point was as the city continues to look
at development opportunities in St. Louis Park, it shouldn’t just talk about the developer,
the development and the code for number of parking spaces per unit. He said discussion
should include how it w ill impact and integrate with the existing community. H e
continued by saying residents are speaking because parking was an issue with Phase I.
The ratio is the same for Phase II. One night was chosen to look at overflow parking.
He said he doesn’t think there is enough parking in Phase II. The residents of the single
family homes and adjacent neighborhood have been impacted negatively by excess
parking whether it is overflow or choice.
Frank Steck, 4121 Randall, Minikahda Oaks neighborhood association president, said
he’s been a neighborhood resident for 20 years. The association is the oldest association
in the city. He said Mr. Kesti has been the neighborhood association liaison with the
Ellipse and the city. He spoke about the expanded parking permit process which will be
coming up in December. Mr. Steck spoke about St. Louis Park being an inner ring
suburb. Neighbors moved to St. Louis Park because they love the community and they
don’t want to see the integrity of St. Louis Park compromised. Mr. Steck said he likes
the Ellipse, but it hasn’t worked from a parking standpoint. He said Ellipse residents
have told him they have parking issues. They have told him they have one parking spot
per unit and they would like a second spot. Visitor parking is an issue. Some Ellipse
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 24
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
residents have told him that visitors or residents with a second car have parked at
Excelsior & Grand.
Mr. Steck spoke about parking and traffic issues and the lack of sidewalk on France Ave.
He said he is very concerned about the experience of the neighborhood for all the
residents. He wondered how the Ellipse will function five years from now when it is no
longer the new kid on the block. He said he believes parking spaces will be about 35
spaces short for the entire development once Ellipse II is completed. He said he is also
concerned about traffic and parking during the winter season. He suggested, as an
experiment, closing off the surface lot in December so that only 22 cars could park there,
as that is the expected overflow at Ellipse II. At the same time 8-10 cars won’t be
parking on France Ave. due to permit parking. See how that works.
Mr. Steck said the numbers show a certain amount of parking spaces/unit. A few spaces
can be removed because of transit and bike trail. Mr. Steck stated that the reality shows
there is not enough parking even though the numbers meet the requirement.
Commissioner Kramer asked what timeframe cars are parking on the street.
Mr. Kesti responded that in the last month, typically Thursday through Saturday between
5 p.m. and 10 p.m. is the heaviest, with 8 to 15 cars parked on France Ave.
Commissioner Kramer asked staff how many parking spots per unit are allowed.
Mr. Walther replied that there is one parking spot per bedroom, not one parking spot per
unit.
Alan Floyd, 3400 Glenhurst, spoke about light intrusion into the neighborhood. He said
the original drawings showed densely planted, mature evergreen trees from the corner of
the development on France Ave. all the way around which would have provided very
effective barrier landscaping to light intrusion. He said currently light comes into his
living room from headlights of traffic coming into the Ellipse. The solution is to plant
trees as were agreed upon. Mr. Floyd said the existing trees are very sparsely planted,
immature evergreens, and small deciduous trees in front of a 6 ft. fence leaving a lot of
open space at the gap. He said it’s been exacerbated by the fact the boulevard was clear
cut all the way down to the park which now allows a clear, unobstructed view of the
backside of the Ellipse. The 6 ft. fence ends right at the point where cars turn in. There’s
a gap.
Mr. Floyd spoke about lighting on the building which intrudes on his property. Stairwell
lighting of bare bulbs is exposed by clear windows. This light glares down on the park.
When it snows this light is accentuated and the whole park glows from the development.
He said he often doesn’t need lights in his living room because the light glow is so bright.
Mr. Floyd spoke about noise issues. He said snowplowing has occurred in the middle of
the night. Parking lot maintenance occurred at 1:00 a.m. last spring. He remarked that
management at the building is not effective. He heard people yelling and screaming in
the parking lot. H e asked an Ellipse resident what he thought of the noise and the
resident said the Ellipse is becoming a dormitory.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 25
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Chairperson Johnston-Madison asked staff and the developer to address light and noise
issues.
Mr. Walther said lighting was a concern prior to the development and immediately
following the development. He said the lighting ordinance applies only to exterior
lighting. There were issues with parking lot lights. The wrong type of fixture was put it
and the developer changed out those lights, and provided guards to eliminate glare
coming from individual lights. Testing has been done along the perimeter and it does
meet ordinance requirements. He said the only lighting which was added subsequent to
the development is down lighting near the sidewalk at the back of the building due to
security issues.
As regards landscaping, Mr. Walther said the Ellipse development did plant exactly what
they said they would plant. The only changes that did happen were along the very north
property line next to the fence with cooperation of the adjacent property owners, as
directed by the City Council when the development was approved.
Mr. Walther said most of the lighting issues either have been resolved to the extent of the
ordinance or are not regulated by the ordinance.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked if it was time to review plantings and make adjustments.
Robb Bader discussed the parking on France Ave. He spoke about guest parking which
is available. Mr. Bader said he met with Mr. Floyd and Nancy Rosen on November 15th.
He said the developer is willing to relook at the plantings. He said they have not heard
any complaints about noise.
Commissioner Person asked if shields could be put on the interior stairwell lights.
Mr. Bader said he will discuss design and safety issues for stairwell lighting with an
interior designer.
Nancy Rose, 3402 Huntington, said she finds the building to be an improvement for the
neighborhood but there are some integration issues. She is concerned about lighting. She
would like to look again at the present design for the drive coming into the new building.
She said it appears there is no planting at the end of that driveway at all.
Mr. Walther spoke about a proposed retaining wall and a transformer that will be placed
in that area. He said there is landscaping on this portion of the driveway but it isn’t clear
what the species are.
Ms. Rose said Ellipse I architectural drawings indicated heavy plantings screening the
driveway coming into the underground garage, but that differed from the planting plans.
Residents were surprised that the planting did not have the effect shown in the architect’s
drawings. She said she currently gets lights in her windows from the parking lot as it is
currently being used, and assumes it will increase after Ellipse II is built. She stated there
should be some kind of screening, whether it is plants or a physical screen.
Chair Johnston-Madison closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to
speak.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 26
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances
Commissioner Shapiro commented that the developer can be asked to make
improvements to the interior lighting but the code won’t allow the city to mandate
interior lighting changes. He said the developer has expressed a willingness to look at it
but he didn’t think it could be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Robertson said the Commission should address what can be addressed.
He spoke about his own neighborhood which includes light from security lighting, traffic,
and cars parking in front of his house. This will occur in a suburban setting. He said
some screening is based on mature vegetation. Perhaps screening should be overplanted
at the start. He said interior lighting is not in the Commission’s purview. Architecturally
it is very hard to deal with glass, lights, and multiple stories, and this is life in the
suburbs.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed with the comments made about lighting. He said
he is concerned about inadequate parking and wants to continue the dialogue about
parking.
Commissioner Robertson said he’s concerned about the tandem parking numbers.
Commissioner Shapiro said he has been to the restaurant at peak times and has noted
empty parking spots when he went in and empty spots when he left. Some of the parking
on France may just be human nature to park where it appears to be closer to the
restaurant. Even if there were 30 extra parking spots people may decide to park on
France Ave. He spoke about his neighborhood where extra cars are parked in front of his
house and neighbors’ houses in the summer. He said that a suburb isn’t protection from
cars.
Commissioner Carper said he wasn’t comfortable with the parking but it does meet the
zoning code. The only alternative would be in the future to change the zoning to require
more parking. He suggested using the tandem parking spots for valet parking. He spoke
about the effectiveness of permit parking. Commissioner Carper said it is a very good
development. He recommended that the developer come forward to City Council with
changes that have been discussed.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of a preliminary and
final plat with two subdivision variances, a PUD Major Amendment, a side yard
variance, and a rear yard variance; subject to conditions including modifying screening
for headlamps and looking more closely at how headlamps affect adjacent properties.
Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Mr. Chad Cooley
January 31, 2007
Page 1
J:\21-3788-00-Ellipse_II\Reports\Ellipse II\Report E II Walther 110411 srf post meeting 110911.docx
November 9, 2011
Mr. Sean Walther AICP
Senior Planner
City of Saint Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Up-dated Parking Demand and Shared Use Analysis for Ellipse 2
Saint Louis Park, Minnesota
Walker Project # 21-3788.00
Dear Mr. Walther:
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) was commissioned to conduct a second parking analysis for
Ellipse on Excelsior as a result of the possibility for a second residential phase expansion identified as
Ellipse 2. The second phase of the project would be located immediately west of Ellipse currently
located at the intersection of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota.
The following report details our methodology, analysis, and findings for the projected parking demand
for Ellipse 2 proposed development expansion.
When previously evaluating parking supply needs for Ellipse on Excelsior, Walker projected the
parking demand anticipated to be experienced during the busiest hour of the busiest month of the
year. The philosophy behind this approach was simple; if the planned supply is adequate to meet
demand at the peak hour of the year, it will be more than adequate to meet demand during the
remainder of the year as well. To augment the previous study demand prediction as a result of the
Ellipse 2 project evaluation, Walker Parking Consultants has performed a site parking inventory and
occupancy count during an assumed peak demand period.
STUDY AREA
The proposed Ellipse 2 development expansion is proposed to contain no additional commercial lease
space, 58 market rate rental units and 31 surface parking stalls. The existing Ellipse development was
constructed as a mixed-used development featuring market rate rental housing, retail, office, and
restaurant space. Totals after expansion include 190 housing units, 16,400 square feet Gross
Leasable Area (GLA) commercial space. Proposed total project parking stall quantities are comprised
of 132 on grade, and 251 enclosed stalls.
1660 South Highway 100, Suite 424
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Voice: 952.595.9116
Fax: 952.595.9518
www.walkerparking.com
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 27
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 2
LAND USES
For this analysis, we will focus our parking demand generation only for commercial space as
residential parking quantities meet, and exceed the requirements of the City of Saint Louis Park, and
because this parking is secured and separate from the commercial surface parking lot areas. The
following commercial space areas are fully occupied during the study period. For site plan study limits,
see Figure 1.
x 190 housing units / 239 Bedrooms
x 383 on-site parking stalls / 132 surface stalls
x Medical office space of 7,500 square feet
x Commercial retail space of 3,650 square feet
x Casual/Dining restaurant space of 5,050 gross square feet
x The Study site limits include only the Ellipse and proposed Ellipse 2 property (West Lot)
Figure 1: Site Plan Study Limits
West
Lot
Ellipse
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 28
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 3
METHODOLOGY
Our methodology for quantification of the parking demand of the combined Ellipse and Ellipse 2
project is to review the previous shared use parking demand model and confirm commercial uses and
areas. Secondly, a site observation was conducted to confirm site parking stall inventory and quantify
parking demand through parking occupancy counts during anticipated demand peak.
Walker conducted an on-site parking demand occupancy count on Friday, October 28, 2011 during
the predicted peak demand hours. Prior to the occupancy count, a meeting with the Ellipse on-site
management staff was conducted to identify parking operations for the residential and existing surface
lot parking.
PARKING OPERATIONS
Parking operations divide the parking demand into two generally separate uses of residential and
commercial. Currently all residential parkers are required to park in the secured underground parking
area, and no overnight parking is allowed in the commercial parking area. Residential guests and
commercial parking contracts are available in the secured below grade parking area in a reserved
area containing 17 parking stalls. Overnight guests are charged $5.00 daily for the secured parking,
and cars are identified with a parking pass. Similarly contract parking is provided in this area using a
parking pass window sticker. Secured area parking pass window sticker see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Parking pass window sticker
The efficient use of this area is important as any parker that does not inhabit this secured parking area
is most likely to park on-site in the commercial surface lot parking area. During Walker’s site
observation, approximately 5 cars were observed in this dedicated parking area.
Within the surface lot area, six parking stalls are identified with individual stall signage that identifies
the stall as residential guest parking. During our observation period this parking area was typically fully
occupied. It should be noted that no methodology for control of the use of these parking stalls is
provided after closure of the Ellipse management office. Because these stalls occur within the surface
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 29
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 4
lot area and no parking control is provided during peak parking demand, these stalls are counted
within the commercial surface lot totals.
Valet parking is currently occurring on-site during the peak parking demand for the on-site restaurant.
The restaurant square footage generally meets with the square footage identified in the previous
parking demand study. Valet parking is typically coordinated with, and under contract to the restaurant
tenant. Parking area for the valet service is currently accommodated by an open lot immediately
adjacent west of the Ellipse project (West Lot). This West Lot is leased to Ellipse and made available to
the commercial tenant valet service. Existing parking capacity of the West lot is approximately 50
parking stalls.
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Parking demand is a dynamic, fluid force, subject to variations according to the availability of
alternative transportation, the proximity of complimentary land uses, variations of user presence
according to time of day and time of year, building occupancy rates and a host of other factors.
Inversely, parking supply tends to be a fixed quantity, limited by the amount of space that can be
allocated to parking facilities. For the use of the Ellipse 2 parking study, we will only review the onsite
surface lot parking supply and commercial demand that is generated for the Ellipse and Ellipse 2
project. The previous parking demand study summary for the Ellipse on Excelsior as previously
provided is included for reference see Figure 3.
Figure 3: Previous parking demand summary
Demand
Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio December
Land Use Demand December 8:00 PM Evening Evening 8:00 PM
Community Shopping Center (<400
ksf)12 100% 65% 98% 89% 7
Employee 3 100% 75% 98% 89% 2
Fine/Casual Dining 89 100% 100% 98% 89% 78
Employee 16 100% 100% 98% 89% 14
Residential Guest 20 100% 100% 100% 100% 20
Medical/Dental Office 23 100% 0% 98% 89% 0
Employee 11 100%0% 98% 89%0
Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 174 121
Residential Guest (Enclosed) -17 -17
Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0
Total Parking Spaces 157 104
% reduction 33%
Weekend
This summary identifies a maximum peak demand of 104 surface parking stalls assuming 17
residential guest spaces are provided within the secured basement parking area. Ellipse management
has identified a quantity of 17 parking stalls are available for this parking demand in the reserved
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 30
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 5
basement parking area. The site observation identified 105 total site stalls; however a stall quantity for
use of the report shall be limited to 101 stalls.
A Parking inventory and occupancy counting for Ellipse was conducted on Friday, October 28,
2011. The intent of this car counting was to compare the actual observed parking demand to the
previously projected study demand. The parking inventory and occupancy counts are displayed in
Figure 4.
Figure 4: Parking inventory and occupancy counts
Of note, primary consideration in the parking occupancy data gathering is the peak on-site occupancy
total that includes all valet parked cars and surface lot parked cars. The maximum observed demand
total is 132 vehicles. During this observation period, an estimated 10 parking stalls in the reserved
parking area for residential guests and employee contract stalls may have been not utilized.
From the parking occupancy data collected, we recalibrate the peak demand to address the monthly
adjustment to the anticipated peak in December for the restaurant. The monthly adjustment is 1/96%
for a 1.04 parking occupancy adjustment factor.
Based on our experiences and analysis, Walker projects the following peak parking demand for the
Ellipse on Excelsior:
TTotal Ellipse & Ellipse 2 peak commercial parking demand 1.04 x 132 = 139 stalls .
PARKING ADEQUACY PROJECTIONS
For the study the residence parking capacities will not be considered in the parking adequacy analysis
as this occupancy is below grade in a secured area. Secondly, the quantity of stalls provided for this
occupancy meet or exceeds the City of Saint Louis Park requirements. Proposed total site surface lot
stall capacities are planned as identified in Figure 5.
ELLIPSE 2
PARKING OCCUPANCY October 28, 2011
Supply 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.
Ellipse Surface Lot 101 43 60 71 87 65 41
West Surface Lot 50 18 28 36 45 38 19
TOTAL 63 88 107 132 103 60
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 31
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 6
Figure 5: Proposed surface lot stall quantities
The proposed configuration for Ellipse 2 surface parking is as displayed in the Figure 6.
Figure 6: Proposed surface lot configuration Ellipse 2
22 Retail
stalls
9 Guest
stalls
Excelsior Blvd.
Ellipse
ELLIPSE & ELLIPSE 2 TOTAL SURFACE PARKING INVENTORY
Supply
Ellipse Surface Lot 101
Ellipse 2 Surface Lot 31
TOTAL 132
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 32
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
November 9, 2011
Page 7
Of note in the on-site parking plans is the use of tandem parking for a portion of the 22 retail spaces.
Tandem parking can be effective when utilized by valet. Utilization of the tandem stalls would likely
only occur during peak parking occupancy periods driven by the restaurant demand. For peak
restaurant demand, an on-site valet operation should be considered to maximize on-site parking
inventory usage.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the proposed and existing project development with applied shared parking ratios can
accommodate the peak parking demand on-site.
This opinion of project parking adequacy relies on the utilization of stalls within the secured parking
areas. Residential guest and contract commercial employee’s usage have adequate demand to fully
utilize the dedicated secured area stalls.
For the purpose of this report, 17 stalls below Ellipse are already dedicated to surface lot demand
occupancies. Total proposed commercial stalls available at time of report total 132 surface +17
secured = 149 commercial demand stalls greater than peak demand of 139 stalls.
We hope you have found this analysis informative and useful.
Respectfully Submitted,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Scott R Froemming P.E
Director of Operations
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 33
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2STREET RENDERINGexcelsior boulevardCity Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 34
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2NORTHSIDE RENDERINGview from Minikahda CourtCity Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 35
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2SITE PLANNORTHPARKING/LOADINGREAR ENTRYSTEPBACKRETAILVALET PARKINGDRIVE UNDER AT GRADE LEVELRAMP DOWN TO RESIDENT PARKINGFIRST FLOOR ROOF OVER GARAGEGUEST PARKINGexcelsior boulevardMAIN ENTRYCity Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 36
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2GARAGESITEGARAGESITEPARKING OVERVIEW ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR:E2 :RESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDUNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDEDRETAIL VALET PARKINGRESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKINGTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED58626273 SPACES (1/BR + 11)229104 SPACES: (62 REQUIRED + 42 ADDITIONAL)RESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDRESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDEDRETAIL / GUEST PARKINGTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED132177177 SPACES 178 SPACES (1/BR)101 SPACES279 SPACES101 RETAIL SPACES178 RESIDENTIAL SPACES73 RESIDENTIAL SPACES22 RETAIL SPACES9 GUEST SPACESPROPOSED PROJECTPROPOSED PROJECTEXISTING PROJECTEXISTING PROJECTCity Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 37
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2SHADOW STUDY SUMMARYFEBRUARY 21DECEMBER 21Minikahda Ct100%100%30%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%45%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%25%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct 100%50% 0% 0%0%0% 0% JANUARY 6 JANUARY 21NOVEMBER 219:00 am10:00 am11:00 am12:00 pm1:00 pm2:00 pm3:00 pmMinikahda Ct 100%90%1%0%0%0%0%City of St. Louis Park Zoning CodeSection 36-366 Architectural Design (b) 1. (9):“All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow which covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.”Conclusion:e2 complies with the City of St. Louis Park Zoning Code on shading criteria for the neighboring properties.City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 38
UPDNDNUPDNDNDNDNDNRAMP UPCONCRETE PADLOADING/TEMP PARKING ZONELSLSCCBALCONYSHARED DRIVEWAY1BRUNIT1BR+UNIT1BRUNITFITNESS STUDIOFITNESSLOBBY/LOUNGEWMSTORAGERETAIL/VALETPARKING25 SPACESRAMP DOWN9 GUEST PARKING SPACESBALC80' - 0"92' - 10"66' - 5"107' - 9 5/8"6'-4 5/8"14'-8 3/4"STUDIOUNIT11'-4"11'-0"20'-11"6'-2"6'-0"6'-0"5'-6"24'-1"20'-10"27'-5"213459876LINE OF SECONDFLOOR WALL ABOVEPREVIOUSPROPERTY LINEREVISEDPROPERTY LINE4 BIKES5% MAX. RAMP36'-8"AREA WAYVANRETAINING WALLFOR TRANSFORMER& EMERGENCYGENERATOREXCELSIOR BOULEVARDTYP.8'-6"TYPICAL18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"22'-0"18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-4 3/8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"18'-0"18'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"KNOX FDKEY BOXKNOX FDKEY BOXKNOX FDKEY BOXN18'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"16'-0"8'-0"5% RAMP DOWN100'-4"FDFDFD99'-8"99'-8"99'-10"99'-10"99'-10"99'-10"STAMPED /STAINEDCONCRETEPATIOFDC020304010GRAPHIC SCALE17% RAMP DOWNFIRST FLOOR GROSS AREASITE AREAPARKING BELOW GRADEALLOWABLE AREA PER SPACEEQUATIONTOTAL EQUIVALENT SITE AREAGROUND FLOOR AREA RATIOGROUND FLOOR AREA RATIO16,799 SF33,687 SF74 SPACES300/SPACE300 SF X 74 = 22,200 SF33,687 SF + 22,200 SF =55,887 SF16,799 / 55,887 = .300NAME AREAARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416AS100SITE PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1" = 10'-0"1SiteCity Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 39
UPDNDNUPDNDNDNDNNotEnclosedDORA252 SFDORA136 SFDORA2677 SFDORA1649 SFRESIDENTIAL6989 SFCOMMERCIALPARKING210 SFRESIDENTIAL9192 SFRESIDENTIAL7243 SFSURFACE PARKING195 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA34 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA979 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA71 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA68 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREADoraCOMMERCIAL PARKINGDORAMISCELLANEOUS AREARESIDENTIALSURFACE PARKING118 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA1270 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA2099 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA308 SFDORA199 SFDORACOMMERCIAL PARKINGDESIGNED OUTDOORRECREATION AREA (DORA),INCLUDES 615 SF ROOFDECKMISCELLANEOUSGREENSPACERESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSURFACE PARKINGTOTAL SITE AREADORA / SITE USES6,989 SF4,188 SF4,833 SF11,051 SF7,243 SF33,690 SF20%12%15%32%21%NAME AREA % OF TOTAL SITEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416AS101ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - PROP USESApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site Dora1Planning Submittal10.17.112Planning Corrections11.09.113Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 40
UPUPUPA2012A2011A2002A2003140' - 0"173' - 0"RAMPUPPROPERTY LINEN STAIR031S STAIR030ELECTRICALMECHEXHAUSTWALL MOUNTED BIKERACK, TYPICAL OF 40TRASH /RECYCLING024ELEVATORLOBBY022PARKING001WATER003MAINTENANCE002BIKE STORAGE00410 BIKES18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"16'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"8'-0"8'-0 3/4"8'-0"8'-6"9'-2"8'-6"123456789MAKE UPAIR UNIT1011121314151617181920212223242526272830313233343536373839404129VAN64666870725860625254564648504749515355575961636567697173424443453'-3 13/16"AREA WELL8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"CEILING MOUNTEDBIKE RACK, TYPICALOF 138'-6"8'-6"8'-6"16'-0"18'-0"7417'-0"6" BOLLARDS6" BOLLARDSARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A100GARAGE PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1GARAGE1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 41
UPDNDNUPDNDNDNDNDNA2012A2011A2002A2003A2013A2014A2015658 SFCONVERTIBLE106UNIT V2715 SF1 BEDROOM104UNIT A2797 SF1 BEDROOM +103UNIT B1735 SF1 BEDROOM102UNIT A2a6952 SFPARKING1501095 SFSTORAGE14080'-13/8"413/16"2'-7"2'-0"11'-0"39'-83/4"11'-25/8"25'-111/4"66'-2"66'-105/8"39'-63/8"A2001140'-0"TRASH124STAIR B131ELEC123644 SFFITNESS125484 SFSTUDIO126139'-8"172'-7"1660 SFLOUNGE/LOBBY120161 SFCONFERENCE121CORRIDOR127ELEVATORLOBBY122WOMEN128MEN129STAIR A130PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE15'-0"5'-0"9'-11 3/4"8'-9 1/4"14'-7 1/2"11'-3 1/4"6'-2 3/8"34'-10 1/2"16'-3 3/8"17'-8"234WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVEGARAGE DOORENTRY TORESIDENTIALPARKINGGARAGE DOORENTRY TO RETAILPARKINGDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOWDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOW567891011121314151617181920212225 RETAILPARKINGSPACES18'-0"18'-0"40'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-43/8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"1'-4"8'-0"19'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-4 3/8"20'-11"8'-0"WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVEXS14"1'-73/4"2523248'-4"25'-0"STAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A110FIRST FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 42
UPDNUPDNA2012A2011A2002A2003A2013A2014A2015786 SF1 BEDROOM +203UNIT B1706 SF1 BEDROOM202UNIT A2b995 SF2 BEDROOM200UNIT C1718 SF1 BEDROOM204UNIT A2719 SF1 BEDROOM206UNIT A1494 SFSTUDIO207UNIT S2719 SF1 BEDROOM213UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM208UNIT A1823 SF1 BEDROOM +210UNIT B2719 SF1 BEDROOM212UNIT A1948 SF1 BEDROOM +214UNIT B5718 SF1 BEDROOM201UNIT A1STAIR B231STAIR B230451 SFSTUDIO205UNIT S3ELEC22213'-3 5/16"21'-2 3/8"10'-3 5/16"77'-1 11/16"7'-0"84'-05/8"11'-25/8"39'-83/4"13'-45/8"51'-2"66'-10"40'-0"4'-95/8"121'-9 5/8"44'-4"6'-10"124'-9 5/8"A2001602 SFCONVERTIBLE211UNIT V1STORAGE22544'-4"ELEV LOBBY221TRASH223CORRIDOR220CANOPY BELOWALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPSTONE VENEERWALL BELOWPAVER PATIO,TYPROOFROOFSTAND PIPESTAND PIPE495 SFSTUDIO209UNIT S1ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A120SECOND FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 43
DNUPUPDNA2012A2011A2002A2003A2013A2014A2015823 SF1 BEDROOM +310UNIT B2719 SF1 BEDROOM308UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM306UNIT A1718 SF1 BEDROOM304UNIT A2804 SF1 BEDROOM +303UNIT B1718 SF1 BEDROOM301UNIT A1995 SF2 BEDROOM300UNIT C1719 SF1 BEDROOM312UNIT A1602 SFCONVERTIBLE311UNIT V1454 SFSTUDIO305UNIT S3ELEVATORLOBBY321948 SF1 BEDROOM +314UNIT B5STAIR B331STAIR A330706 SF1 BEDROOM302UNIT A2b719 SF1 BEDROOM313UNIT A1495 SFSTUDIO307UNIT S2A2001501 SFSTUDIO309UNIT S1TRASH323113 SFELEC322STORAGE325CORRIDOR320STAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A130THIRD FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1THIRD FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 44
UPDNUPUPUPUPUPDNA2012A2011A2002A2003A2013A2014A2015718 SF1 BEDROOM404UNIT A2804 SF2 BEDROOM403UNIT C2706 SF1 BEDROOM +402UNIT B3718 SF1 BEDROOM +401UNIT B4995 SF2 BEDROOM +400UNIT D1948 SF1 BEDROOM +414UNIT B5495 SFSTUDIO407UNIT S2501 SFSTUDIO409UNIT S1454 SFSTUDIO405UNIT S3823 SF1 BEDROOM +410UNIT B2602 SFCONVERTIBLE411UNIT V1719 SF1 BEDROOM412UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM408UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM406UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM413UNIT A1CORRIDOR420A2001STAIR B431ELEVATORLOBBY421152 SFSTORAGE425ELEC422TRASH423STAIR A430STAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A140FOURTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FOURTH FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 45
DNDNDNDNDNDNA2012A2011A2002A2003A2013A2014A20151581 SFCOMMUNITYROOM511948 SF1 BEDROOM +514UNIT B5495 SFSTUDIO507UNIT S2OUTDOORPATIOA2001719 SF1 BEDROOM512UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM506UNIT A1718 SF1 BEDROOM504UNIT A2454 SFSTUDIO505UNIT S3501 SFSTUDIO509UNIT S1719 SF1 BEDROOM513UNIT A1CORRIDOR520716 SFLOFT400UNIT D1402 SFLOFT403UNIT C2416 SFLOFT402UNIT B3424 SFLOFT401UNIT B4152 SFSTORAGE525STAIR B531724 SF1 BEDROOM508UNIT A1ELEV LOBBY520STAIR A322113 SFELEC521TRASH522644 SFSTAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A150FIFTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIFTH FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 46
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"COPPER SIDINGFIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYTEMALUMINUM STOREFRONTCOPPER CANOPYBRICK VENEERALUMINUM SUNSHADEFIBERGLASSWINDOWSMETAL FASCIA& SOFFITMETAL REVEAL,TYP.ALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCAST STONE CAPMETAL PARAPETCAPELEVATOR & STAIROVERRUNPREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING3'-6"TRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"61'-0"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"METAL PARAPET,CAPBRICK VENEERFIBER GLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSUNSHADESTUCCO PANELVENEERALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCAST STONEVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUMINUMSTOREFRONT3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSTOREFRONTMETAL REVEALS,TYPALUMINUMRAILING @ PARAPET CAPMETAL FASCIA & SOFFITTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"STONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUMINUMSTOREFRONT57'-5"ALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCOPPER CANOPYTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"CLASS 1 BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM COPPER SIDING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 2 STUCCO PANEL VENEER CAST STONE VENEER71%29%ELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A200EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION @ SOUTH END OFBLDG1Planning Submittal10.17.112Planning Corrections11.09.113Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 47
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"CAST STONEVENEERALUMINUM RAILING,TYP.METAL PARAPETCAPSTUCCO PANELVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMTEXTURED CMU3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSTOREFRONTMETAL REVEALS,TYPMETAL FASCIA &SOFFITTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"LINE INDICATES OUTLINE OFGARAGE ON ADJACENTPROPERTY. AREA BELOW LINENOT COUNTED IN BUILDINGMATERIAL CALCULATION1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSMETAL RAILING,TYP.STUCCO PANELVENEERTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"FIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTUCCO PANELVENEERSTONE VENEERCAST STONE CAPMETAL PARAPETCAPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"COPPERSIDINGSTUCCO PANELVENEERSTONE VENEERFIBERGLASSPATIO DOORALUMINUMSTOREFRONTALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTSTONE VENEERCOPPER CANOPYFIBERGLASSWINDOWSFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMMETAL PARAPETCAPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"CLASS 1 BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM COPPER SIDING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 2 STUCCO PANEL VENEER CAST STONE VENEER71%29%ELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A201EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4EAST COURTYARD ELEVATI 1/8" = 1'-0"5NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION1Planning Submittal10.17.112Planning Corrections11.09.113Planning Resubmittal12.1.11City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 48
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 49
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 50
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 51
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 52
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 53
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Variances Page 54
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt the Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to
change the zoning of 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)
to General Commercial (C-2), approve the summary ordinance and authorize for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support rezoning the sites at 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard from C-1 to
C-2?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the first reading of the Ordinance rezoning the proposed sites at its
December 5, 2011 meeting. At that meeting the Council also approved a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a motor vehicle service station with a carwash, and an accompanying variance. The
information provided in the December 5th Staff Report regarding the proposed rezoning is
included below.
Discussion during the City Council meeting included questions regarding the major differences
in building size and bulk between the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district and the C-2
General Commercial district. In the C-1 district, the height limit is three stories or 35 feet; in the
C-2 district, the height limit increases to six stories or 75 feet. The floor area ratio limit, which
governs the bulk of a building (or how much building can be constructed on the site) would
increase from an FAR of 1.2 under C-1 to 2.0 under C-2; this change increases the total square
footage of buildable space allowed on the site from 33,641 gross square feet to 56,068 gross
square feet. T he current building on t he site is approximately 2,241 square feet. While
theoretically possible, commercial buildings of much more than 5-7,600 square feet would be
virtually impossible to accommodate on the site. Attached is a brief evaluation of some sample
uses for the site (Info Sheet: C-1 and C-2). It shows the difficulty with using this site for
anything other than its current use or a small retail/service building whether the site is zoned C-1
or C-2.
The applicant has provided additional communication regarding the Conditional Use Permit
application which is attached following the Ordinance and summary ordinance attachments. He
is requesting that the City Council give further consideration to the conditions included in the
CUP resolution of approval. Guidance from the City Attorney regarding City Council action on
the applicant’s proposal will be provided at the City Council meeting.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
Proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map for 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard
Comprehensive Plan: COM – Commercial
Current Zoning: C-1 – Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed Zoning: C-2 – General Commercial
The applicant is requesting that the Zoning Classification for the subject properties be amended
from “C-1 Neighborhood Commercial” to “C-2 General Commercial.” A table is attached
comparing the uses allowed in the C-1 and C-2 districts. Performance standards for the site
would change as follows:
The largest difference between the C-1 district and the C-2 district are the uses allowed (see
attached table); however, height standards and the maximum permitted building size (floor area
ratio) are also different.
The triangular site is at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. For
purposes of determining the setback requirements, the front yard of the site is along Excelsior
Boulevard, and France Avenue is a side yard abutting a street. The west property line is the
site’s rear yard.
Purpose of Request:
The zoning change is required to allow the applicant to move forward with construction of a
carwash expansion to the existing service station. The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district
does not allow carwashes. As noted above, the Council adopted the first reading of the
Ordinance at its December 5, 2011 meeting, as well as a Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit for the proposed carwash.
Is the requested zoning change supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map guides the site for commercial activity under the
COM-Commercial category. The COM category does not distinguish between neighborhood
and general commercial activity, and allows for either C-1 or C-2 zoning. The plan states:
“The Commercial land use category is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of
commercial uses, such as retail, service, entertainment, and office. Commercial uses can range
from small neighborhood convenience nodes, to community retail areas along major roadways,
to large shopping centers, to auto-related commercial uses along freeways…”
Performance Standards C-1 C-2
Height 35 feet (3 floors) 75 feet (six floors)
Setbacks
Front 5 feet 5 feet
Side (abutting street) 15 feet 15 feet
Side None – Unless adjacent
to residential
None – Unless
adjacent to residential
Rear 20 feet None – Unless
adjacent to residential
Screening Required adjacent to
residential
Required adjacent to
residential
Max. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 2.0
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
The Comprehensive Plan guidance allows for a greater intensity of use on the site, particularly in
light of its location at the intersection of two major roadways within the City. Both Excelsior
Boulevard and France Avenue are County Roads. Should the building and site be upgraded as
part of the proposed carwash expansion, it could also come into greater compliance with
Comprehensive Plan goals for higher quality design standards, minimizing the adverse impacts
associated with commercial activity, and improving pedestrian access to and within
neighborhood commercial nodes.
What are the potential impacts to the neighborhood due to the zoning change?
The proposed zoning change may result in a higher level of activity on the Minikahda Mobil site.
Adding a drive-through carwash to the existing service center would provide a new type of
service to the neighborhood and drivers along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, which
may slightly increase the number of vehicular trips to and from the site.
The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district allows lower intensity uses in comparison to the C-2
General Commercial District. Though the size of the site would limit the opportunities for future
use, there are a g reater variety of uses allowed in the C-2 district. Were the site fully
redeveloped at some time in the future, that development could be at a higher intensity under C-2
than under C-1. However, building height and mass would be limited by the site’s small size,
finding space for required off-street parking, and installing stormwater management
infrastructure.
Does the proposed amendment impact the physical character of the neighborhood?
The proposed carwash addition would be similar in scale to the present uses in the area and could
improve aesthetics and revitalize the site in the near-term. Over a longer timeframe, the
proposed amendment may impact the physical character of the neighborhood by allowing more
and taller development on the site, if the service station and proposed car wash were ever
redeveloped.
What input is available from the neighborhood?
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in 2009. Neighborhood feedback from that meeting
was generally supportive of the proposed carwash, although a zoning change was not proposed at
that time. The service station provides automotive repair for many neighborhood residents, and
neighbors have stated that it is a valued service.
Several neighbors have provided written comments regarding the proposal. Those comments are
attached for review; one comment is in opposition to the proposal, while the others are in favor.
Included is a letter in support of the project from Scott Bader, developer of the Ellipse project to
the north of the Minikahda Mobil site. There was one resident present at the Planning
Commission public hearing, and he was neutral in regard to the proposed changes to the site.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from C-1 to
C-2. Rezonings are approved by Ordinance, which requires two readings. This being the second
reading of the ordinance, the rezoning would be placed into effect 15 days after publication of
the Ordinance. A summary of the Ordinance is included for publication.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
Additional Approvals Needed
Prior to obtaining a Building Permit for the car wash addition, several additional City approvals
will be needed, as follows:
• Plat: The development site includes two separate parcels. These parcels will need to be
combined via a new plat. The proposed carwash would be located immediately west of
the existing service station, and would be located over an existing property line. The City
Attorney has advised that the plat process can follow the development approval process,
but will be necessary prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
• Vacation: The existing easement for the sanitary sewer line will need to be vacated and
replaced by a new easement. The vacation process could be handled concurrently with
the platting process.
• Termination of existing Special Permit: Minikahda Mobil currently operates under a
Special Permit issued prior to adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. Should the
Conditional Use Permit be approved, the City will terminate the existing Special Permit
for the 3901 Excelsior Boulevard site.
The City approvals listed here were included as requirements of the Conditional Use Permit for
the carwash, required to be complete prior to issuance of a building permit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Ordinance – Rezoning
Summary Ordinance for 3ublication
Communication from Applicant
Existing and Proposed Zoning Map
Info Sheet: C-1 versus C-2
Resolution #11-133, Approval of Minikahda Mobil CUP
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3901 and 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 11-19-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959 ,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, O rdinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
3901 Excelsior Boulevard:
Property Description Per Certificate of Title No.: 1052108:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows to-wit: C ommencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road with the center line of France Avenue as said Road and Avenue are located and
shown on the plat of MENDOZA PARK, thence running Southwesterly along said center line of
said Excelsior Road to a point made by the intersection of said center line of said Road and
center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen Avenue shall be a l ine
parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and 40 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from Southwesterly line of said Block 15), extended Northwesterly to
make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road; thence running Southeasterly
along said center line of said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the center line of France
Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of said France Avenue to the point of
commencement.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point made by the intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road and the center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen
Avenue shall be a line parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and
40 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Block 15)
extended Westerly to make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road, thence
running Southeasterly along said center line if said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the
center line of France Avenue; thence Southerly along the center line of France Avenue to a point
315.5 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said center line of Excelsior Road with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Northwesterly to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Road 315.5 feet Southwesterly from the intersection of said centerline of said Excelsior Road
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
with the East Line of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Excelsior
Road to the point of beginning.
Subject to easements of the public in France Avenue and Excelsior Road.
3921 Excelsior Boulevard:
Parcel A:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, West of
the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line
of Lot 1, Block 1, HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE, which point is 3 feet Southwesterly as
measured along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, from the Northwest corner thereof; thence
Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, and same extended, a distance 78.3
feet, and which point is actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 190.1 feet; thence East a distance of 48 feet,
more or less, to a point on the West line of France Avenue South, as the same is now laid out and
constructed, which point is 153.2 feet North as measured along the West line of France Avenue
South and the East line of Lot 46, Block 1, of said HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE from
the Southeast corner of said Lot 46; thence North along the West line of said France Avenue
South a distance of 32.55 feet, more or less, to a point on a line, said line being described as
follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center of Excelsior Avenue South with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Southwesterly along the center of said avenue 316.5 feet;
thence Southeasterly at right angles with said avenue 239.35 feet, more or less, to the point of
intersection of said line with the West line of France Avenue, and which point is the point
referred to; thence Northwesterly along said last described line 207.9 feet, more or less, to a
point on the extension Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, Block, 1 HANKE’S MINIKAHDA
TERRACE; thence Southwesterly at right angles and along said extended line a distance of 53
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, excepting, however, therefrom the Northwesterly 17
feet taken for street opening of Excelsior Boulevard.
Subject to easement for driveway purposes as created by deed recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document No. 2647512, and recorded in
1861 of Deeds, page 269.
Subject to a perpetual easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes over that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 52.00 feet Southeasterly of the centerline
of Excelsior Boulevard, recorded as Document No. 6718583, in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 General Commercial.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 11-19-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading December 5, 2011
Second Reading December 19, 2011
Date of Publication December 29, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect January 11, 2012
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3901 and 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
This ordinance states that 3901 a nd 3921 Excelsior Boulevard are rezoned from C-1
Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 General Commercial.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 19, 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: December 29, 2011
From:Alberto Bertomeu
To:Meg McMonigal ; Adam Fulton ; gary adams
Subject:Request for City Counsel review December 19"th
Date:Thursday, December 08, 2011 12:33:12 PM
Attachments:USGUSW04907_LDAPMAIL_12062011-095017.pdf
USGUSW04907_LDAPMAIL_12062011-095509.pdf
USGUSW04907_LDAPMAIL_12062011-101743.pdf
Hi Adam, Meg and Gary,
I would like to review the following content with you and kindly
request to be on the agenda for Dec. 19'th city counsel meeting
for further evaluation.
First and foremost, i am very happy about staffs support on my
3 applications on 3901/3921 Excelsior Blvd. project and ultimately
the close vote, but favorable outcome from the City counsel.
Background:
As you all know, I have a used car lot/business on 4419 Excelsior Blvd
called AutoMotion Sales, which is about 6 blocks away from the gas
station 3901 Excelsior Blvd and the adjacent, empty parking lot
3921 Excelsior Blvd. The operation on 4419 Excelsior Blvd. has done
very well and there is a perceived issue in expanding my used car
sales into the 3901/3921 Excelsior Blvd. location.
As per the attached letter, the city has just very recently raised
their concern is a legal manner on 3921 and 3901 Excelsior Blvd.
The truth is that i am using those locations for repairing
my cars. No cars are directly presented, marked or actively
proposed for sale at this location. I have no problems with the
original and even amended language in the new CUP regarding
this issue. In addition, as of January 2'nd, 2012, I will expand my
Used Cars sales business into an additional, conforming location
outside of STLP further eliminating any perceived issues on my
business in STLP.
However, the restrictions captured in the current CUP went too far
and in addition, here is what happened.
Please see the document dated Nov. 2, 2011 from the
Planning Commission. I had reviewed this document prior
to the planning commission meeting and there are no issues.
Of specific interest is the section/page 12. All ok with me.
The following document, date December 5'th 2011 was mailed
out on Dec. 1'st and i did receive it last Friday. I assumed that
this CUP would not differ from the previous one, but it substantially
did. (page 17 and 18)
Minikahda Mobil is a car repair facility and has been for the longest
time. We provide excellent neighborhood car repair services and
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 9
will continue to do so with the expansion of an new car wash.
Page 17 of the CUP,
# 18
# 19
are truly an issue. Car repairs facilities can not operate with this
type of a limitation. We do large repair jobs like engine replacement,
transmission repairs etc.. all of those can take sometimes weeks...
get used parts, labor, customer pick up issues etc... The limitations
under #18 and #19 are simply not practical and no other car repair
facility in STLP has to live with those limitations. The truth of the
matter is that those have been introduced due to the overarching
concern on the "used cars sales expanded operation/location"
I also find the condition of page 18 " In addition to any other remedies,
the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750..... etc..."
pretty harsh to say the least. If i am truly violating this CUP in the future,
the city has enough remedies to deal with it but to up-front, specify
a penalty is astonishing.
Well, all that being said, in good faith and trust i did not review the
latest CUP and if I would have, i would never have agreed to the points
raised.
In summary, i have absolutely no issue with the used car sales portion of
the CUP. My additional, the outside of STLP acquired dealership will by default
mitigate any issues on this topic. The rest is going to far and really will not
allow me to run a good service business out of there.
Last but not least, the 9 PM limitation on working hours for the new
car wash, specially in the summer hours makes 100% no sense to me
at all but i will not bring this topic up in front on the city counsel on
Dec 19'th. For reasons beyond my understanding, there was a strange
dynamic going on there and i will just simply accept that vote as it is.
Please let me know if I can get a chance to present my concerns to
the city consel for review and vote on Dec. 19'th, 2011 and what I would
need to do to be officially on the agenda.
I appreciate your review of this matter.
regards,
Alberto Bertomeu
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 10
Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations
Prepared by the St. Louis Park
Community Development Department
Existing:
Proposed:
²
Legend
Zoning Information
Zoning Districts
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 11
Info Sheet: C-1 versus C-2
Site size: 28,034 SF
Evaluation of potential future land use at 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Blvd.
Setbacks and other performance standards do not change substantially between C-1 and C-2.
Maximum building:
C-1 – 3 story, 35 feet tall – i.e., office or mixed use building. Up to 33,640 gross SF. 135
parking spaces required for office.
C-2 - 6 story, 75 feet tall – i.e., office or mixed use building. Up to 56,068 gross SF. 224
parking spaces required for office.
Buildings of these sizes technically are allowed on the site. However even a 10,000 SF office
building would be a tight fit for the site and any larger building would require expensive below
ground parking. The setback for a rear yard adjacent to residential (to the south) is for ½ the
height of the building, or in the maximum case, 37.5 feet.
Multi-family residential:
Only allowed on upper floors of a mixed-use building. Similar to the case for an office building,
accommodating even a small two or three story mixed-use building would require very
expensive structure parking and is hard to imagine ever happening.
C-1 – up to 30 units per acre with CUP; up to 19 or 20 units. Height restriction still applies.
C-2 – up to 50 units per acre with CUP; up to 32 units. Height restriction still applies.
Drive-through:
C-1 and C-2 – Allowed with a CUP; both have a 100’ distance requirement from
residential. Applies to any type of drive-through. Stacking requirement is for six vehicles per
customer service point.
Restaurant:
C-1 or C-2 – restaurants are permitted use in both districts. Must be 25’ from any residential
property. To accomplish a restaurant with a drive-through, the developer would need to
accommodate a fairly small restaurant to allow for parking on the site. Parking requirement for a
Performance Standards C-1 C-2
Height 35 feet (3 floors) 75 feet (six floors)
Setbacks
Front 5 feet 5 feet
Side (abutting street) 15 feet 15 feet
Side None – Unless adjacent to
residential
None – Unless adjacent to
residential
Rear 20 feet None – Unless adjacent to
residential
Screening Required adjacent to
residential
Required adjacent to
residential
Max. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 2.0
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 12
restaurant is 1 space per 60 SF – so for a relatively typical fast-food restaurant (the size of the
existing bldg. + carwash, for example, or ~4000 SF), the parking requirement would be for 67
spaces. 67 spaces cannot be accomplished on the site without building structured parking due to
shape and size of site.
Retail uses:
C-1 or C-2 – permitted in both districts. The size of this site would suggest that a small retail
store of 5-7,000 SF with 25-35 surface parking spaces could be accommodated. Both C-1 and C-
2 would allow very similar uses. The awkward shape of the site would however make even a
building this small difficult to fit on the site.
Unusual uses:
C-2 – In the C-2 district, sexually oriented businesses, firearm sales, pawn, and payday loans
must all be 350 feet from residential properties. This rules out this site, because it is 120’ or so
from the Ellipse project, and is also adjacent to residential to the south. The whole site is less
than 350 feet from a residential property.
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 General Commercial
Permitted Permitted
Park / Open Space Medical/Dental Office
Funeral homes
Libraries
Museums
Permitted with Conditions Parks/open space
Adult Day Care Police/fire stations
Group Care / Nursery School Banks
Parks/Recreation Business/trade school/college
Public Service Structures Offices
Animal Handling Retail up to 20,000 sq. ft.
Appliance, small engine and bicycle repair Service
Food service Studios
Printing process Showrooms
Private indoor entertainment Parking lot
Restaurants Transit station
Service up to 2,500 sq. ft. Large item retail < 20,000 sq. ft.
Studio
Communication Towers < 45’ Permitted with Conditions
Limited Impact Sexually Oriented Business Adult Day Care
Residential/Multi-Family Dry cleaning
Libraries Group Care / Nursery School
Museums Parks/Recreation
Police/Fire Stations Public service structures
Transit Stations Utility substation
Parking business Animal handling
Parking lot Appliance repair
Medical/Dental Office Convention / exhibit hall
Funeral home Food service
Banks Hotel / motel
Business/trade schools/college Medical labs
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 13
Office Outdoor sales
Retail Printing process
Large item retail Private indoor entertainment
Shopping Centers Restaurants
Shopping center < 50,000 sq. ft.
Conditional Use Permit Communication towers < 110’
Motor fuel station Parking ramps
Uses exceeding classification 4 Limited impact sexually oriented business
More than 1 principal building High impact sexually oriented business
- Minimum of 350’ from residential
Residential/Multi-Family Residential, in multi-story bldgs
Post Office
Drive-through service Conditional Use Permit
Educational Motor fuel stations
Places of Assembly Motor vehicle sales
Communication towers < 70’ Motor vehicle service and repair with carwash
Places of assembly
More than one principal building
Multi-family housing
Elderly housing
Post office
Drive-through service
Retail stores over 20,000 sq. ft.
Shopping center between 50,000 and 200,000
sq. ft.
Educational
Communication towers < 170’
Pawnshops, min. 350’ from residential
Payday loan, min. 350’ from residential
Firearm sales, min. 350’ from residential
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. 11-133
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION
36-194 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO PERMIT MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE WITH A CARWASH FOR
PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT:
3901 AND 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Alberto Bertomeu has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-194 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of renovating a
motor vehicle service station and adding a carwash within a C-2 General Commercial District
located at 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
3901 Excelsior Boulevard:
Property Description Per Certificate of Title No.: 1052108:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows to-wit: C ommencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road with the center line of France Avenue as said Road and Avenue are located and
shown on the plat of MENDOZA PARK, thence running Southwesterly along said center line of
said Excelsior Road to a point made by the intersection of said center line of said Road and
center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen Avenue shall be a l ine
parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and 40 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from Southwesterly line of said Block 15), extended Northwesterly to
make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road; thence running Southeasterly
along said center line of said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the center line of France
Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of said France Avenue to the point of
commencement.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point made by the intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road and the center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen
Avenue shall be a line parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and
40 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Block 15)
extended Westerly to make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road, thence
running Southeasterly along said center line if said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the
center line of France Avenue; thence Southerly along the center line of France Avenue to a point
315.5 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said center line of Excelsior Road with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Northwesterly to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Road 315.5 f eet Southwesterly from the intersection of said centerline of said Excelsior Road
with the East Line of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Excelsior
Road to the point of beginning.
Subject to easements of the public in France Avenue and Excelsior Road.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 15
3921 Excelsior Boulevard:
Parcel A:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, West of
the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line
of Lot 1, Block 1, HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE, which point is 3 feet Southwesterly as
measured along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, from the Northwest corner thereof; thence
Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, and same extended, a distance 78.3
feet, and which point is actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 190.1 feet; thence East a distance of 48 feet,
more or less, to a point on the West line of France Avenue South, as the same is now laid out and
constructed, which point is 153.2 feet North as measured along the West line of France Avenue
South and the East line of Lot 46, Block 1, of said HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE from
the Southeast corner of said Lot 46; thence North along the West line of said France Avenue
South a distance of 32.55 feet, more or less, to a point on a line, said line being described as
follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center of Excelsior Avenue South with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Southwesterly along the center of said avenue 316.5 feet;
thence Southeasterly at right angles with said avenue 239.35 feet, more or less, to the point of
intersection of said line with the West line of France Avenue, and which point is the point
referred to; thence Northwesterly along said last described line 207.9 feet, more or less, to a
point on the extension Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, Block, 1 HANKE’S MINIKAHDA
TERRACE; thence Southwesterly at right angles and along said extended line a distance of 53
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, excepting, however, therefrom the Northwesterly 17
feet taken for street opening of Excelsior Boulevard.
Subject to easement for driveway purposes as created by deed recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document No. 2647512, and recorded in
1861 of Deeds, page 269.
Subject to a perpetual easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes over that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 52.00 feet Southeasterly of the centerline
of Excelsior Boulevard, recorded as Document No. 6718583, in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 11-20-CUP) and the effect of the proposed motor vehicle service
station and carwash on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the motor vehicle service station and carwash will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and
the proposed motor vehicle service station and carwash is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 11-20-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 16
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit a motor vehicle service station and carwash at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits, incorporated by reference herein.
2. The CUP approval allows for renovation of the existing motor vehicle service building
and construction of an attached carwash addition to the west side of the existing building.
3. If the CUP is approved without a variance to the setback requirements for the distance
between a carwash and a residential property, the plans for the carwash must be revised
to meet all setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following issues pertaining to the landscaping
plan shall be addressed:
a. The landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate the recommendations for plant
species provided by the City’s Environmental Coordinator.
b. The landscape plan shall be revised to show all proposed landscape elements,
locations, species and sizes. The plan is required to be prepared by a registered
landscape architect.
c. Alternative landscaping as permitted by Section 36-364 (g) may be used to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A detailed plan of alternative measures,
including screening walls and seating areas, must be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
5. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Any required permits shall be obtained, including those from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
b. The site plan shall be revised to include the construction of a minimum of four (4)
bicycle parking spaces.
b. The site plan shall be revised to include an opaque six-foot fence for screening along
the western property line.
c. The site plans shall be revised to depict the location of any utility structures and
refuse or recycling storage areas. Such structures or areas shall be screened using
materials similar in design and quality to the materials used for the principal structure
on the site.
a. The developer must receive approval of the vacation of an existing drainage and
utility easement that would be impacted by the proposed carwash.
b. The developer must receive approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat to combine the
parcels.
c. The developer must dedicate any required easements for new or relocated
infrastructure on the site.
d. The developer shall apply to the City Council to terminate the existing Special Use
Permit for 3901 Excelsior Boulevard.
e. The site plans shall be revised to modify the driveway access points on the site per the
requirements of the Staff Report and the County Engineer.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 17
6. The developer shall install a reasonable amount of landscaping screening on the adjacent
residential property, if so desired by the property owner. Any such plan shall be approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The deadline for action by the applicant related to the CUP and Variance approvals shall
be extended from the Zoning Ordinance term of one year from the initial date of approval
to January 1, 2014.
8. The developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation/repair,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and landscaping.
9. Motor vehicle sales of new or used vehicles on the site shall be strictly prohibited. At no
time shall any motor vehicles on the site be displayed or offered for sale, or stored for
anticipated sale on this or any other site.
10. Fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
11. No public address system or outdoor speakers shall be audible from off-site.
12. Test driving of vehicles shall take place on Excelsior Boulevard and shall not occur on
France Avenue.
13. The City Engineer shall review the Building Permit application for potential impacts to
stormwater main pipe running between the service station and the gas pump canopy.
This review may include analysis by an outside structural engineer to insure that the
construction will not result in damage to the stormwater pipe.
14. The entire building, including the remodeled service station, shall meet the Zoning
Ordinance requirements for use of exterior architectural materials. No building permit
shall be issued until the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that the
architectural materials requirements have been satisfied.
15. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall be inside a closed
building except tire inflation, changing wipers or adding oil.
16. The carwash shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of City Code
Section 36-194 (d) (3) (f).
17. Hours of operation for the carwash shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
18. Outdoor storage of any non-operable vehicle shall be limited to no more than 24-hours.
19. Overnight outdoor long-term parking for operable vehicles shall be limited to no more
than three (3) consecutive days on the site.
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.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 18
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Second Reading - Minikahda Mobil Service Station Rezoning Page 19
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 36-33 of the St. Louis Park
Code of Ordinances relating to variances from the Zoning Ordinance and set second reading for
January 3, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Do the proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance meet new state standards as well as city
standards for variances?
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 36-33(d) of the zoning ordinance, pertaining to
variances. The purpose of the amendment is to make the ordinance consistent with new state law.
BACKGROUND:
The State law pertaining to a cities authority to grant variances was amended earlier this year in
response to a 2010 M innesota Supreme Court ruling on a variance case. The law restores
municipal variance authority and provides consistent statutory language between Minn. Stat. Ch.
462 for cities and the county variance authority of Minn. Stat. Sec. 394.27, subd. 7.
The League of Minnesota Cities offers the following explanation:
The new law rebrands the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to
“practical difficulties” but otherwise retains the familiar three factor test of (1)
reasonableness, (2) uniqueness and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence
new to 462.357 that has been in 394.27 that: “Variances shall only be permitted when
they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the
terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.”
So in evaluating variance requests under the new law, cities should adopt findings
addressing the following questions:
• Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of ordinance?
• Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
…, the new law provides that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if they
are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the
variance.
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
Proposed Ordinance:
In response to the new law, city staff prepared the attached amendment to city code. The
following is a summary of the proposed changes:
When considering variances, the new state law requires the city to consider the reasonableness,
uniqueness, the essential character of the property/neighborhood, harmony with the ordinance,
and consistency with the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment modifies the existing
criteria to be consistent with these considerations.
The proposed amendment defines “practical difficulties” (as defined in state law):
(1) The proposed variance is reasonable;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. P ractical
difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
The proposed ordinance keeps the existing evaluation criteria. However, the language is
changed to state that the criteria shall be considered, versus requiring that all of the criteria must
be met. The purpose of keeping this language in the ordinance is to give additional direction and
reasons when considering a variance.
In looking at the League of Minnesota Cities sample ordinance, it is also recommended that the
definition for variance be changed from:
“Variance means the modification of any chapter requirement.”
to
“A Variance is a modification or variation of the provisions of this zoning code as applied to
a specific piece of property.”
The proposed changes also eliminate redundancy and clarify the process and requirements for
reviewing and approving variances. For example, the considerations to be used when reviewing
variances are stated in some manner in three different sections of the ordinance. The proposed
amendment eliminates the redundancies so the considerations are stated only once.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On November 16, 2011 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing on t he proposed
ordinance amendment. No one was present to speak.
The Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment with some suggested
changes; the changes have been incorporated into the draft for City Council approval. The City
Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommend approval of the attached Zoning
Ordinance Amendment pertaining to variances in order to make the ordinance consistent with
new state law.
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
Attachments: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
ORDINANCE NO.____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 DEFINITIONS AND 36-33(d) VARIANCES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 11-15-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4 and 36-33(d) are hereby
amended as follows:
Section 36-4. Definitions. Variance means the modification of any chapter requirement.
Variance means a modification or variation of the provisions of this zoning code as applied to a
specific piece of property.
(d) Variances; limitations. The board of zoning appeals may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances
granted in cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot, exceptional
topographical or water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the lot, the
strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible in the use district in which such lot is located. Applications for
variances shall be filed with the director of planning and shall describe the exceptional conditions of
the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for the variance.
(1) Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the consent of, the
owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of:
a. An application form.
b. The fee payment.
c. A survey of the property showing all property lines, structures and easements.
d. A plan showing all existing and proposed structures.
e. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands within 350 feet
of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners of the
lands in the area as they appear on the records of the county auditor or other
appropriate records.
f. Any other materials required by the city.
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
Before a variance request is approved, the request for the variance shall be considered by
the board of zoning appeals. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state law.
(2) Consideration by the planning commission. Before the board of zoning appeals issues any
variance, the planning commission or a representative authorized by the planning
commission shall review the variance request and report its findings and recommendations
to the board of zoning appeals. If no report is transmitted to the board of zoning appeals
within 45 days after referral of the variance request to the planning commission or i ts
authorized representative, the board of zoning appeals may take action without a planning
commission report.
(3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public hearing
before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after the
application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held only after
the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The Zoning
Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the
application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain
district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice
of the hearing. (Ord. No. 2276-04, 8-14-04)
(4) Hearings. The board of zoning appeals shall hear arguments at the hearing for and against
the proposed variance and it may continue that hearing from time to time if a continued
hearing is reasonably required. Final vote on the proposed variance shall be taken within 30
days after the public hearing is closed.
(5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character and
development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and
the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan.
a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of this chapter provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this
chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or e xceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such
lot is located.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the use district in which the land is located.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
chapter and the comprehensive plan.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose conditions
and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance with the
conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties.
c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe and
floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded
by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such
action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency must also be satisfied:
1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory
floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would
result.
2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and
sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would
result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the
granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause
fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.
3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation.
d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify
the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a
structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such
construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and
property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification
for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report
submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
(5) Appeal to the city council. Any owner of affected property or any owner of property situated
wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property may appeal the decision of the board
of zoning appeals to the city council. The appeal must be in writing and must be filed with
the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date of the board of zoning appeals' decision.
The required fee shall be paid to the city treasurer when the appeal request is filed. When an
appeal is received by the city, the applicant will be notified of the date and time the city
council will hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard until the city has notified all property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property of the date scheduled for the appeal hearing. If
no appeal is made within the ten-day period, the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall
be final. If an appeal is taken from the decision of the board of zoning appeals, the city
council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of the filing of the appeal unless that period
is extended with consent of the appellant. The city council may reverse a decision of the
board of zoning appeals by an affirmative vote of the majority of its full membership. The
city council shall render a decision within 30 days concluding the appeal hearing. A decision
of the board of zoning appeals shall not become effective until the end of the appeal period
has expired. If an appeal is filed before the end of the appeal period the decision of the board
of zoning appeals shall not become effective until the city council has rendered a decision on
the appeal.
(7) Fees. No application for a variance from the provisions of this chapter shall be filed until
the applicant has paid to the city treasurer the application fee established by this chapter
which was adopted by the city council. No appeal of a decision shall be heard until the
appellant has paid to the city treasurer the appeal fee established by this chapter adopted by
the city council.
(8) Limitations. No application for a variance shall be accepted, and no v ariance shall be
granted by the city for any of the following:
a. Land uses not specifically listed within a use district.
b. Floor elevations lower than the flood protection elevation in the floodplain district.
(9) Combined variance and conditional use permit, planned unit development process, or
subdivision. The city council will act as the board of zoning appeals for variance requests
made in conjunction with a conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision. The
planning commission shall hold the public hearing on t he variance request, review the
variance request along with the conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision
process, and report its findings and recommendations to the city council.
Section 36-33(d) Variances; The board of zoning appeals may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance in accordance with state law.
(a) Variances are not permitted for:
(1) Any land use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in
the zone where the affected person’s land is located.
(2) Floor elevations lower than the flood protection elevation in the floodplain
district.
(b) The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of this chapter upon consideration of the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. V ariances shall only be
permitted:
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
(1) When they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance and,
(2) When the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “ Practical
difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the zoning ordinance.
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
(4) Economic considerations alone do n ot constitute practical difficulties.
Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems.
(d) The board shall consider the following criteria when evaluating a variance request:
(1) Circumstances unique to the property include the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property.
(2) The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
(3) The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
(4) The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
(e) The board may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be
directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the
variance.
(f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section
216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance.
(g) Variances involving a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain. If the application for a
variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain district,
then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail to the
Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. In
determining whether the property owner is proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner, the following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied:
(1) Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
(2) Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good
and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance
would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination
that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights,
additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or v ictimization of the public, or conflict with
existing local laws or ordinances.
(3) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
(4) No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
(5) Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant for a variance that: (i) The issuance of a variance to
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased
premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of
insurance coverage and (ii) Such construction below the 100-year or regional
flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be
maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain
a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and
report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the
Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program.
(h) Process. A request for a variance shall be considered by the board of zoning appeals.
The board of zoning appeals shall consider the strict application of the provisions of
this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state law. The city council will act
as the board of zoning appeals for variance requests made in conjunction with a
conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision. The planning commission
shall hold the public hearing on the variance request, review the variance request
along with the conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision process, and
report its findings and recommendations to the city council.
(1) Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the
written consent of, the owners of the property. A complete application shall
consist of:
a. An application and fee payment.
b. A written explanation of the request addressing the variance criteria in
sections (b), (c) and (d) above.
c. A survey of the property showing all property lines, existing and
proposed structures and easements.
d. A dimensioned plan showing the floor plan and elevations for all existing
and proposed structures.
e. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands
within 350 feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and
addresses of the owners of the lands in the area as they appear on the
records of the county auditor or other appropriate records.
f. Any other materials required by the city.
(2) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a
public hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request
within 45 days after the application for a variance is received by the city. The
Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources a copy of t he application for proposed variances(s) occurring
within a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance
so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing.
(Ord. No. 2276-04, 8-14-04)
(3) Hearings. The public hearing shall be held only after the required notice has
been given. The board of zoning appeals shall hear arguments at the hearing
for and against the proposed variance and it may continue that hearing from
time to time if a continued hearing is reasonably required. Final vote on the
proposed variance shall be taken within 30 days after the public hearing is
closed.
(4) Appeal to the city council. Any owner of affected property or any owner of
property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property
may appeal the decision of the board of zoning appeals to the city council.
The appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the city clerk within ten
calendar days after the date of the board of zoning appeals’ decision. The
required fee shall be paid to the city treasurer when the appeal request is filed.
When an appeal is received by the city, the applicant will be notified of the
Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances
date and time the city council will hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard
until the city has notified all property owners within 350 feet of the subject
property of the date scheduled for the appeal hearing. If no appeal is made
within the ten-day period, the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall be
final. If an appeal is taken from the decision of the board of zoning appeals,
the city council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of the filing of the appeal
unless that period is extended with consent of the appellant. The city council
may reverse a decision of the board of zoning appeals by an affirmative vote
of the majority of its full membership. The city council shall render a
decision within 30 days concluding the appeal hearing. A decision of the
board of zoning appeals shall not become effective until the end of the appeal
period has expired. If an appeal is filed before the end of the appeal period
the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall not become effective until
the city council has rendered a decision on the appeal.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 11-15-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
Public Hearing November 16, 2011
First Reading December 19, 2011
Second Reading January 3, 2012
Date of Publication January 12, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect January 27, 2012
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Adoption of 2012 Budgets, 2012 Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, 2012 – 2016 Capital
Improvement Plan and 2012 Utility Rates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2012 Budgets and authorizing the 2012 Final
Property Tax Levy.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2012 Final HRA Levy.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2012 Utility Rates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to adopt the 2012 Budgets for General, Park and Recreation,
Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds? Also,
does the City Council desire to adopt the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy at $23,762,751,
which is an increase of $1,066,823 or approximately 4.70% over what is anticipated to be
received in 2011?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2012 Final HRA Levy at the maximum amount
allowed per state law of $983,574, which is a decrease of $45,314 or approximately
4.41% less than 2011?
• Does the City Council desire to adopt the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2012 Utility Rates as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
2012 General Property Tax Levy
Over the past several months continued discussions regarding the 2012 Budget have taken place
with the City Council. On September 6, 2011 the City Council adopted a resolution and set the
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,830,726, which is an increase of $1,134,798, or
approximately 5.00% from what is anticipated to be received in 2011. The Truth in Taxation
Public Hearing was held on Monday December 5, 2011 with information reflecting the 5.00%
levy increase. Based on information contained in the December 5, 2011 Regular City Council
Meeting Report, it was the recommendation of staff to set the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy at
$23,762,751, or approximately a 4.70% increase from what is anticipated to be received in 2011.
This recommendation of staff is still applicable and is what is reflected in this staff report.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
Below is information as it pertains to the 2012 Total Ad Valorem Levy and how those tax dollars
are planned to be allocated among various funds:
2011 2012 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Levy Final From 2011 From 2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172 $20,169,798 $75,626 0.38%
Less: Market Value Homestead Loss (667,539)- 667,539 -100.00%
Park Improvement Fund 1,519,000 810,000 (709,000) -46.68%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 438,300 100,000 29.56%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 315,000 (100,000) -24.10%
Debt Service 996,995 1,929,629 932,634 93.54%
Employee Administration Fund - 100,024 100,024 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,695,928 $23,762,751 $1,066,823 4.70%
2012 HRA Levy
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council has elected to use the levy
proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the
HRA levy proceeds have been used to fund part of infrastructure improvements on Excelsior
Blvd – Louisiana to Dakota, and studies and analysis for future improvement projects. By law,
these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Given the
significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly for transportation
infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana and possibly the Highway 100 reconstruction,
staff recommends that the HRA levy continue to be set at the maximum allowed by law for the
2012 budget year.
The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. The EDA is requested to
approve the 2012 Final HRA Levy on December 19, 2011 before the Regular City Council
meeting. As outlined in the resolution, the 2012 Final HRA levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the
taxable market value of the City. Based on this, the maximum 2012 Final HRA Levy is
$983,574. This is a $45,314 decrease or approximately 4.41% from 2011 Final HRA Levy of
$1,028,888.
General and Park and Recreation Fund Revenue and Expenditure Summary Budget Data
The following two pages depict summaries of revenues and expenditures for the General and
Park and Recreation Funds:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Adopted Requested Change Final to '12
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,426,072$ 15,998,292$ 572,220 3.71%
Licenses and Permits 2,345,910 2,368,799 22,889 0.98%
Intergovernmental 1,136,187 1,163,677 27,490 2.42%
Charges for Services 1,152,642 1,270,354 117,713 10.21%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 328,200 328,150 (50) -0.02%
Investment Earnings 200,000 125,000 (75,000) -37.50%
Miscellaneous Revenue 104,900 115,100 10,200 9.72%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,023,003 (566,874) -21.89%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,283,787$ 23,392,375$ 108,588 0.47%
Appropriations 23,283,787$ 23,392,375$ 108,587 0.47%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations (0)$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 170,945 4.27%
Licenses and Permits 6,600 6,600 - 0.00%
Intergovernmental 77,652 68,902 (8,750) -11.27%
Charges for Services 1,095,249 1,070,750 (24,499) -2.24%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings - - - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 952,400 980,050 27,650 2.90%
Transfers In - 30,000 30,000 0.00%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,132,462$ 6,327,808$ 195,346 3.19%
Appropriations 6,132,462$ 6,327,808$ 195,346 3.19%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 0$ (0)$
Grand Totals:29,416,249$ 29,720,183$ 303,933$ 1.03%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPENDITURES:(0)$
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
and Activity Adopted Requested Change Adopt to '12
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,542,570$ 1,680,166$ 137,596 8.92%
Communications & Marketing 294,470 265,426 (29,044) -9.86%
Community Outreach 88,515 8,185 (80,330) -90.75%
Information Resources 1,394,226 1,507,579 113,353 8.13%
Accounting/Assessing 1,113,106 1,159,532 46,426 4.17%
Community Development 1,094,186 1,076,376 (17,810) -1.63%
Facilities Maintenance 1,114,550 1,083,128 (31,422) -2.82%
Total General Government 6,641,622 6,780,392 138,769 2.09%
Public Safety:
Police 7,208,512 7,273,723 65,211 0.90%
Fire Protection 3,164,344 3,346,931 182,588 5.77%
Inspectional Services 1,863,296 1,889,340 26,044 1.40%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152 12,509,994 273,843 2.24%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 829,698 389,783 (439,915) -53.02%
Engineering 846,031 927,337 81,306 9.61%
Operations 2,550,285 2,604,870 54,585 2.14%
Total Public Works 4,226,014 3,921,989 (304,025) -7.19%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,239,230 1,305,747 66,518 5.37%
Recreation Center 1,442,447 1,466,246 23,799 1.65%
Park Maintenance 1,435,374 1,461,645 26,271 1.83%
Westwood 502,366 515,456 13,091 2.61%
Environment 371,325 390,009 18,684 5.03%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,721 1,188,705 46,983 4.12%
Total Park & Recreation 6,132,462 6,327,808 195,346 3.19%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total General & Park Funds 29,416,250$ 29,720,183$ 303,933 1.03%
Other Budgets–Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Rev. and Select Capital Project Funds
Summaries for Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and relevant Capital Projects Funds
that departments budgeted for in 2012, are provided in the attached resolution. This is consistent
with last year, as staff thought it was important to continue showing a more comprehensive
picture of the resources the City is entrusted with and have the City Council adopt those
additional budgets. Therefore, the total expenditures that the City budgets for is approximately
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
$49 million, with $29.7 million or 60.6% attributed to the General and Park and Recreation
Funds with the remaining $19.3 million or 39.4% attributed to the other funds.
2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City Council reviewed the CIP at study sessions throughout the 2012 Budget process. The
next five years will continue to have aggressive infrastructure construction. This is evident with
the scheduled completion of the two fire stations in 2012, continued planning on the anticipated
Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave. interchange project and possible Highway 100 improvements
scheduled during this period. In addition, continued investment in the regular cycle of street
reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure improvements, and replacement of existing vehicles
and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is vital that careful planning continues to occur in an
effort to maintain financial stability while still investing in capital.
The 2012 – 2016 CIP shows that:
• $155.6 million in planned investment over the next five years
• $104.0 million of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, state and county
government, in addition to Municipal State Aid (MSA), Met Council and other
jurisdictions (not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities).
• $4.1 million of estimated project costs do not have a funding source, most of which
pertain to Trunk Highway 100 reconstruction.
• Resources that the city has direct control over will require a minimum investment of
approximately $47.5 - $51.6 million over the next 5 years depending on final
determinations of anticipated funding sources.
Costs not included in the proposed 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Plan at this time include:
• A civic/community center (Vision item).
• Expansion of the city’s streets and utility systems (other than interchange projects).
• Cost estimates for expanded sidewalks/trails – the project is listed as a placeholder only.
Only those projects included in the CIP for 2012 are authorized for purchase during the next
year. The out years, 2013-2016 are for planning purposes only and do not represent a firm
commitment to construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council.
Any projects estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for
acceptance by the Council.
Utility Rates
City staff, in conjunction with consultants, analyzed the City’s utility operations and capital
plans over the next 10 years to determine if rate adjustments are needed to maintain long term
sustainability in each of the four utility funds. The City Council reviewed and discussed
information provided by staff over the course of the year to determine the proposed utility rates
for 2012 to be considered this evening.
Based on Council direction, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property
for all the utility rate adjustments would be $35.43 for the year, or approximately $2.95 per
month. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500
gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service.
The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on
January 1, 2012. The attached resolution provides specific information on the recommended rate
adjustments for each fund.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
2012 Total Estimated City Impact - Residential Homestead Property - Taxes and Utilities
Based on the information stated above, using a City share levy increase of 4.70% and realizing
that there are many variables in estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a
typical property in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $220,100 for taxes payable in 2012
and having typical utilities would experience an annual increase of approximately $44.88, or
about $3.74 per month. For the proposed increase, the breakout is $35.43 for utilities and $9.45
for City property taxes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed budgets, tax levies, and utility rates will support necessary city services to be
provided during 2012. In addition, the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan provides a plan in
an effort to fund the City’s infrastructure and equipment needs over the next five years.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision, including strategic directions, was used in preparing the budget documents and many of
the projects in the CIP have a direct relationship to the Strategic Directions adopted by the City
Council.
Attachments: Resolution – Adopting 2012 Budgets & Authorizing 2012 Final Property Tax Levy
Resolution – Authorizing the 2012 Final HRA Levy
Resolution – Adopting the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan
Resolution – Adopting the 2012 Utility Rates
CIP – Funding Source Summary – 12-19-11
CIP – Projects & Funding Sources By Department – 12-19-11
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2012 BUDGETS AND
AUTHORIZING THE 2012 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax
levy and a budget in December of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the 2012 Budgets are adopted as presented in the 2012 budget document; and
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Budgeted Revenues
2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Adopted Proposed Change Final to '12
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.:
General Property Taxes 19,426,633$ 20,169,798$ 743,165 3.83%
Licenses and Permits 2,352,510 2,375,399 22,889 0.97%
Intergovernmental 1,213,839 1,232,579 18,740 1.54%
Charges for Services 2,247,891 2,341,104 93,213 4.15%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 328,200 328,150 (50) -0.02%
Investment Earnings 200,000 125,000 (75,000) -37.50%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,057,300 1,095,150 37,850 3.58%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,053,003 (536,873) -20.73%
Total Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.29,416,249$ 29,720,183$ 303,934 1.03%
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Budgeted Expenditures
2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Adopted Proposed Change Final to '12
Total General Government 6,641,622 6,780,392 138,770 2.09%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152 12,509,994 273,842 2.24%
Total Public Works 4,226,014 3,921,989 (304,025) -7.19%
Total Park & Recreation 6,132,462 6,327,808 195,346 3.19%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total General & Park Funds 29,416,250$ 29,720,183$ 303,933 1.03%
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
2011 2012
Adopted Proposed
HRA Levy Fund
Total HRA Levy Revenues 1,155,888$ 1,053,574$
Total HRA Levy Expenditures 36,000 -
Cable TV Fund
Total Cable TV Revenues 555,000 541,692
Total Cable TV Expenditures 619,340 697,422
Development Fund
Total Development Fund Revenues 1,010,892 1,001,676
Total Development Fund Expenditures 849,393 1,463,077
CDBG Fund
Total CDBG Revenues 206,000 186,000
Total CDBG Expenditures 205,681 199,382
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,100,000 1,059,389
Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 1,273,015 1,218,267
Water Utility Fund
Total Water Revenues 5,312,894 6,198,734
Total Water Expenses 4,465,990 4,667,224
Sewer Utility Fund
Total Sewer Revenues 5,358,033 5,930,858
Total Sewer Expenses 5,306,726 5,745,246
Solid Waste Utility Fund
Total Solid Waste Revenues 2,894,000 2,972,000
Total Solid Waste Expenses 2,829,735 2,860,335
Storm Water Utility Fund
Total Storm Water Revenues 1,993,698 2,064,655
Total Storm Water Expenses 2,187,698 1,708,035
Employee Administration Fund
Total Employee Benefits Revenues 59,000 217,722
Total Employee Benefits Expenses 614,000 544,000
Uninsured Loss Fund
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 37,000 58,000
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 184,495 170,898
Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and Select Capital Project Funds
Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2011, collectible in
2012 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
2012
FINAL TAX LEVY
2012 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,169,798
Park Improvement Fund 810,000
Capital Replacement Fund 438,300
Pavement Management Fund 315,000
Debt Service 1,929,629
Employee Administration Fund 100,024
TOTAL 2012 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY $23,762,751
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2011 FINAL HRA LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2012
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2012,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 12
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2012-2016
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Controller related to proposed capital spending for 2012-2016; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to
enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council
and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The 2012-2016 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year
2012 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 13
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION SETTING UTILITY RATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report through the Controller related to proposed utility rates; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain charges in an amount necessary to
cover the cost of providing service to users; and
WHEREAS, maintaining rates through regular adjustment is a recommended practice
rather than large intermittent increases;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The water rates as recommended are hereby adopted.
Description Units of Usage* Adopted
Rate
Tier1 0 - 40 units (0-30,000 gallons) $1.39
Tier 2 41-80 units (30,001 – 60,000
gallons)
$1.74
Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons) $2.61
Commercial All units $1.39
Irrigation All units $2.61
*1 unit equals 100 cubic feet or 750 gallons
2. The water meter charges recommended are hereby adopted.
Residential/Multi-
family
Quarterly Fee
Commercial
Monthly Fee
Meter Size 2012 2012
5/8" $12.59 $4.20
3/4" $12.59 $4.20
1" $17.63 $5.88
1.5" $22.66 $7.55
2" $36.51 $12.17
3" $138.49 $46.16
4" $176.26 $58.75
6" $264.39 $88.13
2" compound $36.51 n/a
3" compound $138.49 n/a
3. The Minnesota Department of Health for state testing for water quality will continue to be
imposed at a rate of $1.59 per quarter for residential and multi-family and $0.53 per month
for commercial accounts.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 14
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates
4. The sanitary sewer usage rate recommended is hereby adopted at $2.53 per unit.
5. The sanitary sewer base charge recommended is hereby adopted at $13.04 per quarter for
residential and multi-family accounts and $4.35 per month for commercial accounts.
6. The storm sewer rate recommended is hereby adopted at $15.50 per quarter per residential
equivalent unit or $25.83 per month per residential equivalent unit for commercial accounts.
7. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Charge pass through for properties located within
the Bassett Creek Watershed Management District will be $1.60 per quarter per residential
equivalent unit or $0.53 per month per residential equivalent unit.
8. The solid waste service charges recommended are hereby adopted.
Service Level In Gallons Rates
30 $48.07
60 $61.14
90 $74.20
120 $87.27
150 $100.34
180 $113.40
210 $126.47
240 $139.53
270 $152.60
360 $191.81
450 $231.01
540 $270.20
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2012 thru 2016
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 413,900 Capital Replacement Fund 3,045,864 2,468,409 3,001,863 2,058,345 2,513,695 13,088,176 E-911 Funds 25,000 65,000 90,000 EDA Development Fund 0 0 Henn Co Youth Sports Grant 312,000 100,000 412,000 Hennepin County 320,000 300,000 620,000 HRA Levy 2,398,000 1,012,542 3,410,542 Met Council Grant 34,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 73,000,000 Municipal State Aid 520,000 540,000 2,010,000 395,000 3,465,000 Other Jurisdictions 556,000 900,000 1,456,000 Park Improvement Fund 958,000 842,000 1,427,000 1,627,000 995,000 5,849,000 Parks & Recreation 20,000 20,000 Pavement Management Fund 2,101,698 1,758,697 1,806,750 1,429,815 2,117,598 9,214,558 Police & Fire Pension 65,125 127,625 662,625 37,625 100,000 993,000 PW Engineering Budget 28,500 5,000 7,500 5,000 46,000 PW Operations Budget 280,718 382,401 279,497 283,234 286,486 1,512,336 Sanitary Sewer Utility 632,000 400,900 207,500 1,225,000 225,000 2,690,400 Special Assessments 581,000 110,000 658,000 35,000 1,384,000 State of Minnesota 865,000 15,197,000 16,062,000 Stormwater Utility 230,000 580,000 230,000 830,000 230,000 2,100,000 Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,509 3,776,509 U.S. Government 7,630,000 7,630,000 Unfunded 0 29,703 30,047 4,031,510 33,324 4,124,584 Utilities 10,000 10,000 Water Utility 617,100 1,473,900 130,500 1,300,000 708,000 4,229,500 Youth Assoc - Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
GRAND TOTAL 45,181,355 46,107,535 20,856,082 35,791,880 7,675,653 155,612,505
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 15
City of St. Louis Park, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2012 thru 2016
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Buildings
City Hall HVAC 20091599 3 110,000 110,000 City Hall Space Reallocation 20091600 3 500,000 500,000 Renovate City Hall Interior Stairway 2010B2 1 30,000 30,000 City Hall Garage Floor Patching 2010CH1 1 10,000 10,000 City Hall Garage Floor Sealant 2010CH2 1 45,000 45,000 City Hall 1st Floor Covering 2012CH1 1 50,000 50,000 City Hall Main Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 2012CH2 1 160,500 160,500 City Hall/PD Generator Emissions Control 2012CHPD1 1 50,000 50,000 Westwood Nature Center Sound Control Door 2012WNC1 1 5,000 5,000 City Hall 1st Floor Entry Canopy 2013B1 1 50,000 50,000 City Hall 2nd Floor Covering 2013CH1 1 100,000 100,000 City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 2013CH2 1 20,000 20,000 City Hall East Parking Lot - chip, seal , stripe 2013CH5 1 7,500 7,500 Police Station Exterior Finishes 2013PD1 1 100,000 100,000 Police Station Fire Alarm Panel 2013PD2 1 15,000 15,000 Police Station Patio Replacement 2013PD3 1 7,000 7,000 Police Squad Parking Lot 2013PD4 1 5,000 5,000 Westwood Nature Center Generator 2013WNC1 1 50,000 50,000 City Hall 3rd Floor Covering 2014CH1 1 100,000 100,000 City Hall Alarm Panel 2014CH2 1 30,000 30,000 MSC - Chip, Seal, Stripe parking lot 2014MSC1 3 40,000 40,000 Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway 2014WNC1 1 11,000 11,000 City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 2015CH2 1 30,000 30,000 MSC Generator Set 2015MSC1 1 100,000 100,000 Roof Top Units 1st and 2nd floor 2016CH2 1 100,000 100,000 City Hall Roof Top Unit 3rd Floor 2016CH3 1 100,000 100,000 City Hall Chip, Seal, Stripe Main Parking Lot 2016CH4 3 10,000 10,000 Westwood Nature Center Flooring 2016WNC1 1 70,000 70,000
Buildings Total 510,500 789,500 251,000 75,000 280,000 1,906,000
Capital Replacement Fund 500,000 789,500 251,000 75,000 280,000 1,895,500 PW Engineering Budget 10,500 10,500
Buildings Total 510,500 789,500 251,000 75,000 280,000 1,906,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 16
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Cable TV
Knox Router for Chambers TV-20120012 1 6,000 6,000 Wireless mic systems TV-201201 1 2,000 2,000 CG TV-201202 1 7,000 7,000 CD Player TV-201203 1 250 250 Production titler TV201204 1 4,000 4,000 Teleprompter TV-201204 1 1,200 1,200 DVD recorder TV-201206 1 1,500 1,500 Computer TV-201207 1 1,400 1,400 Annoucer Monitor TV-201301 3 300 300 50' audio snake TV-201302 1 400 400 Shotgun mics TV-201303 1 500 500 Hand-held mics TV-201304 1 300 300 Behringer Audio Equipment TV-201305 1 1,500 1,500 Camera Monitors TV-201306 1 900 900 Replacement edit systems TV-201307 1 35,000 35,000 DVD Recorders TV-201401 1 500 500 Slow-motion replay TV-201402 1 30,000 30,000 12-channel audio mixer TV-201403 1 700 700 Digital camcorders TV-201404 1 7,500 7,500 NLE stations TV-201405 1 10,200 10,200 Microphones TV-201406 1 900 900 Van Cameras TV-201501 3 120,000 120,000 Van Camera Cases TV-201502 3 20,000 20,000 Van Camera Cables TV-201503 3 13,000 13,000 LCD monitors TV-201504 3 15,000 15,000 Hard-Drive Video Recorder TV-201505 1 2,500 2,500 Converter for Recorder TV201506 1 6,000 6,000 Tripods for On Location TV-201507 1 36,000 36,000 Video Switcher TV-201508 1 16,500 16,500 SD/HD converter TV-201509 1 4,200 4,200 DVD recorders TV-201510 1 1,500 1,500 Tripods TV-201511 1 1,500 1,500 Unit pro light kit TV-201512 1 900 900 Playback systems TV-201513 1 28,200 28,200 Announcer Headsets TV-201601 3 750 750 Shotgun mics TV-201602 1 500 500 Hand-held mics TV-201603 1 300 300 Replacement edit systems TV-201604 1 35,000 35,000
Cable TV Total 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 413,900
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 413,900
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 17
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Cable TV Total 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 413,900
Community Development
CD-Bikeways CD-001 5 0 0 CD-Sidewalks CD-002 5 0 0 0 0 CD-Trails CD-003 5 0 0
Community Development Total 0 0 0 0
Unfunded 0 0 0 0
Community Development Total 0 0 0 0
Fire
SCBA Replacement 2014F1 1 400,000 400,000
Fire Total 400,000 400,000
Capital Replacement Fund 400,000 400,000
Fire Total 400,000 400,000
Parks & Recreation
Tree Replacement 20071010 3 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000 Aquila Park Field 5 Lights 20120010 3 85,000 85,000 Aquila Park Sun Shelter 20120020 1 30,000 30,000 Aquila Park Trail Lights 20120030 3 20,000 20,000 Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Nelson Parks 20120040 3 50,000 50,000 Basketball Hoops-Aquila Pk & Jr. High 20120050 3 15,000 15,000 Bleacher Rplcmnt-Dakota & Tower Parks 20120060 1 20,000 20,000 Carpenter Park - Skippy Field - Dug Outs 20120070 3 20,000 20,000 Dakota Park Baseball Field Netting Rplcmnt 20120080 1 10,000 10,000 Dakota Park Field & Park Improvement 20120090 1 312,000 312,000 Dakota Park Softball Field #1 Redev & Fence Repl. 20120110 3 60,000 60,000 Freedom Park-Paul Frank Baseball field fence repl. 20120120 3 17,000 17,000 Justad Park Drinking Fountain 20120130 3 12,000 12,000 Park Shelter Bldg Stain-LA & Oak Hill Parks 20120140 3 20,000 20,000 Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill & Wolfe Pks 20120150 1 75,000 75,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park Addt'l accessible entrance 20120160 1 15,000 15,000 Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery update 20120170 3 40,000 40,000 Rec Center Concession Cooling System 20120180 1 50,000 50,000 Rec Center Cooling Tower Enclosure Wall Rebuild 20120190 3 30,000 30,000 Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 20120200 5 12,000 12,000 24,000 Rec Center West Arena Fire Protection 20120210 1 25,000 25,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 18
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration System Study 20120220 1 20,000 20,000 Scoreboards-Cedar Knoll Park 20120230 3 7,000 7,000 Tower Park Field Redevelopment 20120240 3 200,000 200,000 Trail/Field Light Impr.Dakota,LA,OH Prks 20120250 3 65,000 65,000 Westwood Hills NC Trail Overlay 20120260 1 20,000 20,000 Basketball Hoop Replacement-Central CC 20130010 3 5,000 5,000 Cedar Knoll Park Storage & Concession Bldg Remodel 20130020 3 40,000 40,000 Court Resrfcg-Bass Lake,Fern Hill & Carpenter Park 20130030 3 30,000 30,000 Dakota Park Softball Fld #2-Redvlp & fence replace 20130040 3 60,000 60,000 Jorvig Park Train Depot Improvements 20130050 3 40,000 40,000 Louisiana Oaks Park Field Lighing (NW fields) 20130060 5 250,000 250,000 Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System 20130070 5 35,000 35,000 Park Shelter Flooring 20130080 3 70,000 70,000 Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement 20130090 3 30,000 30,000 Playground Eqpt Repl.-Dakota & Oak Hill Park 20130110 1 70,000 70,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park Re-caulking 20130120 1 15,000 15,000 Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet 20130130 3 8,000 8,000 Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 20130140 3 12,000 12,000 Rec Center Window Replacement 20130150 3 25,000 25,000 Westwood Hills NC Brick & Rental House Imprvmnts 20130160 5 70,000 70,000 Westwood Hills NC Brick House Main Parking Lot 20130170 5 15,000 15,000 Westwood Hills NC Exhibit & Signage Rplcmt 20130180 5 30,000 30,000 Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rplcmnt (N)&Railing 20130190 1 30,000 30,000 Westwood Hills NC Y-Dock Replacement 20130200 3 50,000 50,000 Field Renovation-Cedar Knoll (Carlson Field) Park 20140010 3 25,000 25,000 Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 20140020 3 22,000 22,000 Park Shelter Bldg Stain-Browndale & Nelson Pks 20140030 3 20,000 20,000 Playground Equip Repl-OH south & Wolfe Parks 20140040 1 180,000 180,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture 20140050 3 15,000 15,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park Waterslide Surface 20140060 1 80,000 80,000 Rec Center East Arena Repainting 20140070 5 55,000 55,000 Rec Center East Arena Rubber Flooring 20140080 3 30,000 30,000 Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby) 20140090 1 480,000 480,000 Rec Center Security Cameras - Interior 20140110 5 75,000 75,000 Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification 20140120 1 320,000 320,000 Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Decking Replacement 20140130 3 20,000 20,000 Westwood Hills NC Deck Repair 20140140 3 10,000 10,000 Westwood Hills NC Parking Lot & Drive Seal Coat 20140150 3 20,000 20,000 Wolfe Park Pond Re-landscaping 20140160 3 15,000 15,000 Basketball Court Resurface-Mkda V,Pen,Wolfe Pks 20150010 3 15,000 15,000 Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk & Northside Pks 20150020 3 14,000 14,000 Kilmer Pond Shoreline Restoration 20150030 3 10,000 10,000 Louisiana Oaks Park Pond Shoreline Restoration 20150040 3 15,000 15,000 Playground Structure Rplcmnt-Jersey, LA & Nelson 20150050 1 175,000 175,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 19
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Rec Center Aquatic Park Feature Painting 20150060 1 15,000 15,000 Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 20150070 3 75,000 75,000 Rec Center Gallery Flooring 20150080 1 12,000 12,000 Rec Center West Arena Painting 20150090 3 60,000 60,000 Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration Replacement 20150110 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 Skate Park Equipment Replacement 20150120 3 50,000 50,000 Trail Recon. along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 20150130 1 30,000 30,000 Westwood Hills NC Brick House Parking Area 20150140 5 5,000 5,000 Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 20150150 3 6,000 6,000 Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement (south end) 20150160 3 100,000 100,000 Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement 20160010 3 60,000 60,000 Court Resurface (bb/Tns)-Browndale&Sheldard 20160020 3 5,000 5,000 Field Construction for Wiffleball-Dakota Pk/Schl 20160030 3 25,000 25,000 Louisiana Oaks Park Sun Shelter (NW) 20160040 1 30,000 30,000 Parking Lots-Dakota, Fern Hill & OH Pks 20160050 1 180,000 180,000 Playground Equipt Repl-Blackstone,Justad&Rnbw 20160060 1 35,000 35,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Resurface 20160070 1 180,000 180,000 Rec Center Aquatic Park-Rplc Chem Control System 20160080 1 15,000 15,000 Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface/Recoat 20160090 3 30,000 30,000 Trail Mill & Ovrly-Bass Lake, LA, OH, & Wolfe Pks 20160110 1 110,000 110,000 Trail Lights-Aq., Cpntr, Shlrd & Wolfe Pks 20160120 3 115,000 115,000 Westwood Hills NC Brick House Storage Garage 20160130 5 55,000 55,000 Westwood Hills NC Front Irrigation 20160140 3 20,000 20,000 Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement 20160150 1 50,000 50,000 Westwood Hills NC Security Cameras 20160160 3 25,000 25,000 Annual Equipment Replacement Program E - XX01 1 1,837,864 918,909 1,395,863 1,258,345 1,615,695 7,026,676
Parks & Recreation Total 3,127,864 1,875,909 2,822,863 2,900,345 2,610,695 13,337,676
Capital Replacement Fund 1,837,864 918,909 1,395,863 1,258,345 1,615,695 7,026,676 Henn Co Youth Sports Grant 312,000 100,000 412,000 Park Improvement Fund 958,000 842,000 1,427,000 1,627,000 995,000 5,849,000 Parks & Recreation 20,000 20,000 Pavement Management Fund 15,000 15,000 Youth Assoc - Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
Parks & Recreation Total 3,127,864 1,875,909 2,822,863 2,900,345 2,610,695 13,337,676
Public Works
Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 20052000 1 6,500,000 6,500,000 Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft) 20072400 1 350,000 350,000 Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 20082500 5 250,000 250,000 Street Project - France Ave Improvements 20100005 5 320,000 320,000 Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 20101300 1 581,700 581,700
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 20
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 20101500 1 250,000 250,000 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8) 20111000 1 1,739,268 1,739,268 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20111100 1 320,000 320,000 Street Project - TH 169 Access Closure 20111101 5 400,000 400,000 Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4) 20120001 1 347,430 347,430 Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 20120003 1 82,500 82,500 Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 20120004 1 62,500 62,500 Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 20120006 1 30,000 30,000 Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter. 20120100 5 25,200,000 25,200,000 Street Project - Hwy 169 Access Closure 20120102 5 559,000 559,000 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1) 20121000 1 1,438,316 1,438,316 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 20121200 1 200,000 200,000 Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 20121300 5 2,000,000 2,000,000 Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 20121301 5 2,039,051 2,039,051 Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 20121302 5 500,000 500,000 Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 20121304 1 275,000 275,000 Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 20121305 1 250,000 250,000 Traffic Signal Proj - Park Ctr Blvd @ Park Summit 20121306 1 600,000 600,000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement 20121400 1 35,400 35,400 Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 20121500 1 1,110,000 1,110,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 8) 20122200 1 157,000 157,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 20122300 1 475,000 475,000 Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5) 20130001 1 308,381 308,381 Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 20130003 1 82,500 82,500 Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 20130004 1 62,500 62,500 Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 20130006 1 30,000 30,000 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2) 20131000 1 1,504,750 1,504,750 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20131100 1 515,000 515,000 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 20131200 1 200,000 200,000 Railroad Proj. - RR Xing Devices on Brookside Ave 20131301 1 250,000 250,000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement 20131400 1 263,900 263,900 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 1) 20132200 1 175,900 175,900 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement 20132300 1 125,000 125,000 Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6) 20140001 1 290,000 290,000 Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 20140003 1 82,500 82,500 Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 20140004 1 62,500 62,500 Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 20140006 1 30,000 30,000 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3) 20141000 1 1,184,815 1,184,815 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20141100 1 500,000 500,000 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd) 20141101 1 340,000 340,000 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 20141200 1 200,000 200,000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement 20141400 1 130,500 130,500 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 2) 20142200 1 150,000 150,000 Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7) 20150001 1 250,000 250,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 21
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 20150003 1 82,500 82,500 Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 20150004 1 37,500 37,500 Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 20150006 1 30,000 30,000 Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 20150100 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4) 20151000 1 1,887,442 1,887,442 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20151100 1 420,000 420,000 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20151101 1 150,000 150,000 Bridge Project - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek 20151102 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 20151200 1 200,000 200,000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement 20151400 1 150,000 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 3) 20152200 1 150,000 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #9 & FM Rehab 20152300 1 57,500 57,500 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Forcemain Rehabs 20152301 1 75,000 75,000 Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8) 20160001 1 248,674 248,674 Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 20160003 1 82,500 82,500 Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 20160004 1 37,500 37,500 Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 20160006 1 30,000 30,000 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 20161100 1 395,000 395,000 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 20161200 1 200,000 200,000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement 20161400 1 308,000 308,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 4) 20162200 1 150,000 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #1 & FM Rehab 20162300 1 75,000 75,000 Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets M - XX06 1 0 29,703 30,047 31,510 33,324 124,584 Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals M - XX07 1 10,130 10,434 10,748 11,070 11,400 53,782 Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair M - XX08 1 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Street Light Project - System Replacement M - XX10 1 130,588 136,001 125,749 122,164 126,568 641,070 Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements M - XX12 1 42,966 42,966 PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project M - XX13 1 121,000 110,000 158,000 35,000 424,000 Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 TEMP-0004 1 400,000 400,000 Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing TEMP-0012 1 302,500 302,500 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - MCES Golden Valley TEMP-0014 1 22,010,000 22,010,000 Sanitary Sewer Proj. - MCES Hopkins Interceptor TEMP-0015 1 12,005,000 12,005,000 12,005,000 15,005,000 51,020,000
Public Works Total 40,721,516 42,455,601 15,649,794 31,788,610 4,030,408 134,645,929
Hennepin County 320,000 300,000 620,000 HRA Levy 2,398,000 1,012,542 3,410,542 Met Council Grant 34,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 73,000,000 Municipal State Aid 520,000 540,000 2,010,000 395,000 3,465,000 Other Jurisdictions 556,000 900,000 1,456,000 Pavement Management Fund 2,101,698 1,758,697 1,806,750 1,414,815 2,117,598 9,199,558 PW Engineering Budget 18,000 5,000 7,500 5,000 35,500 PW Operations Budget 280,718 332,401 279,497 283,234 286,486 1,462,336 Sanitary Sewer Utility 632,000 400,900 207,500 1,225,000 225,000 2,690,400 Special Assessments 581,000 110,000 658,000 35,000 1,384,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 22
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
State of Minnesota 865,000 15,197,000 16,062,000 Stormwater Utility 230,000 580,000 230,000 830,000 230,000 2,100,000 Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,509 3,776,509 U.S. Government 7,630,000 7,630,000 Unfunded 0 29,703 30,047 4,031,510 33,324 4,124,584 Water Utility 617,100 1,473,900 130,500 1,300,000 708,000 4,229,500
Public Works Total 40,721,516 42,455,601 15,649,794 31,788,610 4,030,408 134,645,929
Technology
IT: On-going Hardware / Telephone Replacement TRF-001 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 IT: On-going Software Replacement TRF-002 1 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 IT: On-going Network Replacement TRF-003 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Fire/Police: 800 MHz Radio/Console Replacements TRF-111 1 660,000 660,000 PW: Asset Mgmt Software Consolidation/Site License TRF-215 3 25,000 25,000 IT: On-going SAN Storage Additions TRF-218 1 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 225,000 IT: E-Mail Archival / Document Management Solution TRF-220 3 100,000 100,000 Parks: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements TRF-221 3 10,000 10,000 Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work TRF-222 3 6,000 6,000 IT: Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins TRF-306 3 15,000 15,000 IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica TRF-307 3 20,000 20,000 IR/SS: City Hall Production Copiers TRF-308 3 65,000 65,000 PW / Parks: MSC Copiers (2) TRF-309 3 30,000 30,000 IT: Fiber Conduit - TBD TRF-312 3 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 Police: Wireless Hotspots TRF-313 3 2,500 2,500 Police / Rec Center / Nature Center: Copiers TRF-314 3 50,000 50,000 Police: Mobile Replacements TRF-315 1 100,000 100,000 200,000 Fire: Mobile Replacements TRF-316 3 40,000 40,000 Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement TRF-321 1 250,000 250,000 Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement TRF-322 1 210,000 210,000 Police: CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement TRF-323 1 27,625 27,625 27,625 27,625 110,500 IT: Telephone System Upgrade TRF-335 3 100,000 0 100,000 Fire: EOC Equipment TRF-342 3 10,000 10,000 IT: Smart Boards TRF-344 5 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Admin Serv: Council Chambers Laptops (or Tablets) TRF-345 3 15,000 15,000 30,000 Admin Serv: Voting Machines TRF-346 1 105,000 105,000 IT: Basic Windows 7 / Office 2010 Training TRF-347 3 20,000 20,000 Parks: Nature & Rec Centers Surveillance Cameras TRF-348 3 10,000 10,000 20,000 Parks: Network Nature Center Picnic Building TRF-349 3 5,000 5,000 Parks: Square Rigger Mobiles TRF-352 1 8,000 8,000 IT: UPS Enhancements TRF-353 3 35,000 35,000 IR / Communications: Reverse 911 TRF-355 3 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 PW: HP Scanner / Plotter / Copier TRF-356 3 10,000 10,000 IT: Network Switches TRF-400 1 100,000 100,000
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 23
Department Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
IT: Tape Library Replacement TRF-501 1 50,000 50,000 Insp: Permit Tech Document Scanners TRF-502 3 10,000 10,000 IR: Placeholder Only: Big Fiber Project??? TRF-504 5 0 0 Admin Serv: Property Data System Replacement TRF-505 1 75,000 75,000 Parks: Class / E-Connect (Parks) Replacement TRF-506 1 75,000 75,000 Insp: Permits / E-Permits System Replacement TRF-507 1 30,000 30,000 Police: Jail Cameras TRF-508 1 23,000 23,000 Police: Exterior Cameras TRF-509 1 12,000 12,000 IR: Video Conferencing TRF-510 5 20,000 20,000 IT: Tablets / Mobiles TRF-511 5 10,000 10,000 IR / Support Serv: Microfiche Conversion to Images TRF-512 3 150,000 150,000 Fire / Police: Dispatch Intercity Backup TRF-513 3 25,000 25,000 Inspections: POS/Health Tablets/Laptops/Printers TRF-514 3 7,000 7,000 Utilities: SCADA Server TRF-515 5 10,000 10,000 PW: AVL TRF-516 5 50,000 50,000
Technology Total 798,125 947,625 1,682,625 762,625 718,000 4,909,000
Capital Replacement Fund 708,000 760,000 955,000 725,000 618,000 3,766,000 E-911 Funds 25,000 65,000 90,000 EDA Development Fund 0 0 Police & Fire Pension 65,125 127,625 662,625 37,625 100,000 993,000 PW Operations Budget 50,000 50,000 Utilities 10,000 10,000
Technology Total 798,125 947,625 1,682,625 762,625 718,000 4,909,000
Grand Total 45,181,355 46,107,535 20,856,082 35,791,880 7,675,653 155,612,505
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2012 Budget, Certification of 2012 City and HRA Levies, CIP, and Utility Rates Page 24
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2012 Employee Compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution confirming a 2% general increase for non-union employees
effective 1/1/12; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2012, continuing participation in the
Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2% for Paid-
On-Call Firefighters for 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2012 employee compensation?
BACKGROUND:
This report summarizes employee compensation for 2012.
A. Non-Union Employee Compensation – 2% General Increase Effective 1/1/12
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve
the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and the
general financial condition of the City. A review of our positions was conducted by
consultant George Gmach of Trusight, Inc (formerly Employer’s Association, Inc.). Mr.
Gmach reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro area cities
(suburbs) with populations over 25,000 but less than 90,000 as required in our
compensation plan. After review of the market, our consultant determined that pay
maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive if increased by 2%.
The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our
compensation plan. In our plan, after successful completion of probation (typically six
months), a position receives up to double the standard increase to progress through the
pay range until they reach the payline (maximum). P ositions at the maximum will
receive the standard adjustment of 2%.
As a general note, all five bargaining groups have open contracts for 2012 and the City is
participating in ongoing negotiations with these groups.
B. Salary Cap and City Manager Salary
The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when
salaries are established for other non-union employees.
Salary Cap: The salary cap is adjusted annually for inflation. The Minnesota Management
and Budget Office (MMB) has issued a statement that the salary cap for 2012 w ill
increase from $151,866 to $157,181.
The 2011 annual salary for City Manager is $151,866 and additional PTO of 21.57 hours
(at $73.013 = $1,575) for a total of $153,441, not including car allowance.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2012 Employee Compensation Page 2
2012 Pay Range: After review of the regional market data in the United States, our
consultant has recommended the pay range for City Manager be set at $148,750 -
$175,000 for 2012.
2012 Compensation: The City Manager’s compensation is recommended to increase in
accordance with the compensation plan, consistent with all other non-union employees.
Because the City Manager’s compensation is not at the max of the 2012 range, the City
Manager is eligible for double the standard increase (4%). A 4% increase would be total
compensation of $159,579.
It is recommended that effective January 1, 2012, Council approves an annual salary of
$157,181 annually ($75.568 hourly) for the City Manager, not including car allowance, in
accordance with the salary cap. Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the
PTO program. In addition, Council approves 31.73 hours of PTO for the City Manager
in 2012 (31.73 x $75.568 = $2,398).
Paid Time Off (PTO Program)
The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual.
Section 9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees,
including the City Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17,
Subd. 9, shall receive equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of
paid leave (PTO) is determined by the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically
accrued on a per pay period basis, although the Council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a
lump sum amount of time. Paid leave (PTO) may be used as earned, maintained in a paid
leave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of employment. Paid leave (PTO) is
separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-127). Each July 31, all
hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan account established
for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104).
C. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighters receive a l ife insurance benefit through the Volunteer
Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council
approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance.
This program is very affordable and covers one career firefighter eligible (due to a
continuation clause) and our Paid-on-Call Firefighters. It covers life insurance up to
$20,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This program is a typical benefit
offered to other Paid-on-Call Firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since Paid-
on-Call Firefighters are not eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important
that we provide some type of life insurance coverage for this group. We recommend
Council approves continued participation in this program consistent with Resolution 05-150.
D. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program – 2% Increase
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program system was established in 1996. The
Performance Program system was designed for our Paid-on-Call Firefighters to be
competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department
Relief Association. The Performance Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has
recommended a 2% increase to this program, effective January 1, 20 12. (Payment is
typically made at year end based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief.)
General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan are available from the City Clerk.
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2012 Employee Compensation Page 3
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The increases for groups listed above are included in the 2012 budget along with other (step)
increases for other contract employees.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2012 Employee Compensation Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
COMPENSATION FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES;
SETTING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY;
CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT PROGRAM;
AND CONTINUING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY FOR
PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such
Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has
conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative
policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park:
A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a s tandard adjustment of 2%,
effective January 1, 2012 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan.
C. Confirms a salary of $157,181 for the City Manager, not including car allowance. Salary
application must comply with the salary limitations set by statute, therefore PTO applies
to the City Manager’s car allowance of $600 per month. C ouncil also approves an
additional 31.73 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2012.
D. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association
of MN Benefit Program for 2012, consistent with Resolution 05-150.
E. Approves continuation of the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2012 Performance Program with a
2% increase, effective January 1, 2012.
Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters
For 0 – 23 months of service, Paid-on-Call Firefighters are eligible to receive a monthly
amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount. This amount
may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts after the 23 month
timeframe show annual amounts as follows:
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2012 Employee Compensation Page 5
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Years of Service
2012 Annual
Up to 23 Months
of Service
$147 per month
2 $1,921
3 $2,063
4 $2,220
5 $2,361
6 $2,503
7 $2,646
8 $2,802
9 $2,946
10 $3,087
11 $3,245
12 $3,400
13 $3,542
14 $3,699
15 $3,840
16 $3,984
17 $4,126
18 $4,282
19 $4,424
20 $4,568
Meeting Date: December 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution providing for formal acceptance of the annual City Manager
evaluation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to formally accept the annual City Manager evaluation?
BACKGROUND:
On Monday, December 12, 2011, the Council met in a closed Executive Session to discuss the
annual City Manager evaluation. J. Forrest, consultant, reviewed the results and facilitated the
discussion with the Council.
The Mayor will provide a summary of the evaluation results at the meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 19, 2011 (Item No. 8f) Page 2
Subject: Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE
ANNUAL CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
WHEREAS, the City Council provides an opportunity to hold an annual evaluation of
the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2011, a closed Executive Session of the Council was held
to discuss the evaluation; and
WHEREAS, J. Forrest, consultant, facilitated the conversation with the Council to
finalize the evaluation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park hereby accepts the annual evaluation of the City Manager.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk