HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MAY 3, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein Out
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. Study Session Minutes of April 12, 2010
3b. Joint City/School Board Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2010
3c. City Council Minutes of April 19, 2010
3d. Study Session Minutes of April 26, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the
Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Galaxy Drive-In – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision
Variance.
Recommend Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Drive-In Restaurant located at 3712 Quebec and 3715 Rhode Island
Avenues South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Galaxy
Drive Inn Addition.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Parking Restrictions.
8b. Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project.
Recommend Action: Motion to approve an Agreement with KKE Architects, Inc. for
architectural and engineering services related to the proposed replacement of Fire Stations
No.1 and No. 2.
9. Communication
Meeting of May 3, 2010
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve second reading of Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Wind
Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4b. Approve second reading of Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to electronic
signs, bufferyards and outdoor dining areas and approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
4c. Approve an extension until May 31, 2011 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and final
planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End.
4d. Approve Resolution amending Resolution No. 09-129 approving a Housing Improvement
Fee for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA.
4e. Approval of Filing of Vendor Claims
4f. Approval for Filing Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 25, 2010
4g. Approval for Filing Charter Commission Minutes March 10, 2010
4h. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Study Session Minutes April 7, 2010
4i. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 12, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt (arrived at
7:29 p.m.), Julia Ross (arrived at 6:57 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), City Clerk
(Ms. Stroth), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Finance Accountant (Ms. Monson), Recreation
Superintendent (Mr. Birno), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Ann Thomas and Joan Fenton, Parktacular Celebration Board members
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 26, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for April 26, 2010.
2. Parktacular Celebration Presentation
Mr. Harmening introduced Ann Thomas and Joan Fenton, Parktacular Celebration Board
members.
Ms. Fenton presented an overview of the 2010 Parktacular celebration taking place June 17 through
June 20. She stated that the 2010 budget for Parktacular is $51,700 and they hope to receive
$15,000 from sales of the Parktacular buttons. She stated that Phil Weber has agreed to sponsor the
dance which is scheduled for Saturday, June 19. She indicated there was a need for more
communication regarding the event.
Ms. Thomas presented email survey results that overall were positive, however included a request to
lengthen the hours, to have more beverage options, to make the rides more affordable, to include
healthy food options, and to have more events for teens and tweens. She also stated that this year
they have added a Humane Society adoption event and a Bloodmobile.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010
In addition to the Parktacular Celebration being advertised in numerous locations, Councilmember
Sanger suggested including information about Parktacular in the newsletters of surrounding
communities.
Ms. Fenton stated the block party has been the focal point of Parktacular and requested that the City
Council consider extending the hours to 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated that there were no noise concerns raised last year.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he was willing to extend the hours to 11:00 p.m. this year and if noise
complaints are raised, the 10:00 p.m. close will be reinstated.
Ms. Fenton announced that Parktacular will be having a hot dog fundraising event on Friday,
Saturday and Sunday, April 16, 17, and 18, at the Cub Foods at Knollwood. She also stated that the
Parktacular buttons go on sale on Monday, May 17th at City Hall.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to Ms. Fenton and Ms. Thomas for their
dedicated efforts.
3. Lawful Charitable Gambling
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and discussed the City’s authority related to charitable
gambling. She stated that the City currently imposes a 1/10 of 1% local tax to cover gambling
administration costs. She discussed lawful purpose expenditures and how the trade area and
gambling relates to St. Louis Park. She stated that cities may require licensed organizations to
contribute up to 10% per year of net profits to a city administered fund; and that the City currently
does not require a 10% contribution fund.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he would like a policy that would encourage these groups to
spend their proceeds in St. Louis Park. He stated the City has several new bars opening up and felt
it was important to have standards in place related to charitable gambling, including perhaps a
limitation on the number of charitable gambling locations in the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to see constraints, to the extent possible, that charitable
donations are funneled to St. Louis Park charities. She indicated reinstating the 10% City
Contribution Fund as a means of making sure that allowable expenditures actually meet the needs of
the charities in the City.
Mr. Scott stated that the City can require up to a 10% contribution fund but cannot limit where the
funds are spent. He reiterated that the City requires charitable gambling organizations to expend
90% of its lawful purpose expenditures within the trade area.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010
The Council discussed lawful purpose expenditures, the 10% contribution fund, and the City’s
authority pursuant to State statute.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he would like the Council to further review the City’s allowable
regulation options with respect to limiting the number of premises locations any one charity can
have in the City. He stated he would like to have a requirement that an organization be in existence
in the City for a specified number of years and to consider limiting the total number of premises
permits in the entire City. He indicated he was concerned that if the Council does not address
these issues now and premises permits are approved, the City will lose this opportunity for
thoughtful policy consideration and direction.
Councilmember Mavity requested a more definitive legal opinion with respect to the question of
whether the City can use a 10% contribution fund requirement as a means of encouraging
organizations to donate their charitable contributions to St. Louis Park organizations.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will provide the Council with the feedback received through the public
process of meeting with current gambling organizations and establishments. In addition, staff will
research how a 10% requirement would work and whether the 10% requirement can be leveraged to
encourage operators to donate to St. Louis Park organizations.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the City delay action on any new charitable gambling
applications until the Council has concluded its work on this.
4. Contracting Relating to Women, Minority and Small Business Owners
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. She indicated that the City currently has no specific policy
regarding this issue except as it relates to HUD requirements.
Mayor Jacobs noted that the City is required to take the lowest responsible bidder.
Ms. Gohman discussed the HUD requirements applicable to the City’s Housing Authority,
including the requirement that to the greatest extent possible, efforts shall be made to make use of
small and minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses. She also
discussed the City’s bidding process and how that process could be more proactive. She stated that
in general, the City does not send email notifications to the various trade associations when a bid is
being let, but agreed that the City could start doing this again.
The Council suggested using electronic communication to trade associations to alert them when bids
are being let.
Councilmember Sanger stated that for larger contracts, the City could encourage general contractors
to use subcontractors that are minority-owned. She questioned whether the City is not subject to
regulation in other areas beyond housing and transportation because there are federal rules that
pertain to contracts over certain amounts.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010
Ms. Gohman stated that the City’s energy grants include federal reporting requirements. She
added there used to be more affirmative action reporting requirements but these requirements have
been removed over the years.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a statement for Council
consideration that encourages contracting with women, minority, and small business owners,
including more proactive communication.
5. Update on Minnesota Jobs Bill
Mr. Locke and Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and discussed the Minnesota Jobs Bill signed by
the Governor on April 1, 2010. Mr. Locke stated this new law represents an extremely flexible tool
and an opportunity to provide some financial assistance to local businesses, whether big or small, to
enable them to make improvements in their facilities thereby retaining and/or increasing
employment in St. Louis Park. They also discussed with the Council a confidential business that
was analyzing its local operations and requested a proposal to incent it to expand in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Hunt stated that under the new law, the legislature freed up cash balances within TIF districts,
allowing for use of funds for construction purposes that will ultimately retain or create jobs. He
indicated that this means the City has approximately $1.8 million between nine TIF districts at its
disposal. He pointed out that the legislation requires that construction begin prior to July 1, 2011
and any cash balances must be expended by December 31, 2011.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated his concern that not all of the TIF funds should be used on just
one project, and to make sure that some guarantees are in place regarding job creation and retention.
Councilmember Sanger stated it would also be helpful to have some idea what other uses are
available for the $1.8 million in TIF funds that would be consistent with the spirit of the legislation.
Mr. Hunt stated that the intended use of the funds was to stimulate private sector construction that
would result in the retention and/or creation of jobs.
Councilmember Mavity requested that consideration be given to using some of the funds for green
building principles as it relates to light rail station planning.
It was the consensus of the EDA/City Council to direct staff to prepare a draft policy or program for
Council consideration as it relates to the EDA’s use of the cash balances in existing TIF districts
pursuant to the Minnesota Jobs Bill. It was also the consensus of the EDA/City Council to direct
staff to respond to the recent request from the confidential business discussed earlier with respect to
its possible location in St. Louis Park, with the understanding that any agreement reached with the
confidential business will require EDA/Council approval and with the further understanding that
the entire $1.8 million in available TIF funds not be used on the one project. It was also the
consensus of the EDA/City Council that any forgivable loan provided to a business will require a
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010
commitment by the business to remain in the city for a predetermined number of years and that the
business provide livable wage jobs.
6. School Property Use Parameters/Public Process
Mr. Locke presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council is scheduled to meet with the School District on April 19th and
the focus of that discussion will be in regards to the two school sites. He stated it will be important
for the Council to remind the School District that the sale of the two properties should not be
predicated on the assumption that the property will be rezoned for future use.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the Council already has some clear policy direction about land
uses in the City as well as the City’s vision statement that discusses the need for more gathering
places. She expressed concern that a task force approach might eclipse the Council’s earlier policy
decisions.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed frustration that the School District has not provided the City
with any definitive information regarding its intentions going forward with these properties.
Ms. McMonigal discussed the land use parameters contained in the staff report and stated that
because the schools are located in residential areas, industrial and commercial development is not
recommended. She stated that residential use in its broadest sense is an appropriate use and there is
an opportunity here to have a mix of residential housing that meets the needs of the community.
Councilmember Sanger stated that a portion of the Eliot site includes a park and asked if the City
would be open to designating a new park on this site.
Ms. McMonigal indicated that while there is open space at the Eliot site it is not planned in the long
range parks plan to be a city park. She stated that the east portion of the Cedar Manor School site is
used and operated as a city park and is identified in the Park plan to be acquired or otherwise
retained a neighborhood park.
Mr. Harmening stated that the agenda for next week’s meeting with the School District will include
a discussion of the public process to be used that involves the School District, the neighborhoods,
and other stakeholders in order to reach agreement on the future use of the properties. He added
that discussion regarding artificial turf will take place only if there is sufficient time at the end of the
meeting.
7. Communications
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 12, 2010
Mr. Harmening reminded the Council regarding the Cedar Lake Road closure due to the railroad
crossing work. He indicated that the work will begin on April 20th and signs have been posted in the
area.
Councilmember Sanger requested an update regarding the delays with the Wooddale Avenue bridge
construction and any issues with the contractor.
Mr. Harmening provided an explanation to the Council of the claim that Ames Construction had
made for a change order. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that Mr. Harmening contact Bill
McCarthy of the Minneapolis AFL-CIO.
Mr. Harmening asked the City Council if the update on the Convention and Visitors Bureau was
adequate.
It was the consensus of the City Council to continue to move forward with a Convention and
Visitors Bureau as outlined in the staff report.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. Ellipse Public Art Update
9. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau Exploration
10. Fire Stations Project Update
11. Urban Forestation Policy Amendment
12. Relocation of Polling Location for Ward 4, Precinct 17
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Joint City Council / School Board Meeting
City of St. Louis Park
Council Chambers 3rd Floor
April 19, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:02 p.m.
Council Members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Sue Sanger, Anne Mavity, Sue Santa, Julia Ross, Phil
Finkelstein, and Paul Omodt.
School Board Members present: Board chair, Nancy Gores, Bruce Richardson, Jim Yarosh, Julie
Sweitzer, Larry Shapiro, Rolf Peterson, and Pam Rykken.
City Staff present: Tom Harmening, City Manager; Bridget Gothberg, Organizational
Development Coordinator.
School District staff present: Dr. Debra Bowers, Superintendent.
Meeting
The City Council and School Board discussed:
• Overview of Changes/Decisions Made on school facilities
• Current Status of Eliot and Cedar Manor
• Future ideas/goals for these properties and appropriate public process
• Artificial Turf
.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 19, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Police Chief (Mr. Luse),
City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Community Development Director (Mr.
Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr.
Morrison), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Caring Youth Day Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the Caring Youth Day Proclamation and stated this is the 21st year that
this celebration has been held to recognize the youth in the community for their caring spirit
and concern for others. He stated these young people will be recognized at an event on April
27, 2010. He then presented the Proclamation to Ryan Muralt, Caring Youth honoree
representing Westwood Lutheran Church.
Ryan Muralt expressed his thanks to the City Council for the award.
2b. Recognition of Board and Commission Members
Mayor Jacobs read the proclamation honoring the City’s Board and Commission Volunteers
and in observance of National Volunteer Week, and presented Certificates of Appreciation
to ten past board and commission members. He expressed the City Council’s deep
appreciation to all the volunteers for their service to the community.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2010
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes of April 5, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the third full paragraph on page 4 be amended to
reflect that all of the councilmembers were in favor of this option.
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Minutes of April 5, 2010
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. To Enter into a delegation agreement with MDH for continuing to provide
Environmental Health Services.
4b. Approve Designate Valley Paving Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of contract with the firm in the amount of $1,005,620.31 for the 2010
Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 6, Project No. 2009-1000.
4c. Approve an amendment to the City’s Urban Reforestation Policy to incorporate the
treatment of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) as an allowable use of the Land Sale
Proceeds.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-038 approving relocation of polling place for Precinct 17
located in Ward 4 from Eliot Community Center to Peace Presbyterian Church,
7624 Cedar Lake Road.
4e. Approve the 2010 Neighborhood Grants.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 10-039 ordering the abatement of the hazardous building
located at 3317 Texas Avenue South.
4g. Approve Change Order #4 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-
1900.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 10-040 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 3129 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 17-
117-21-12-0176.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 10-041 of the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
recognizing the contributions of and expressing appreciation to David Klumpner.
4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 2010.
4k. Approve for filing Planning Commission Study Session Minutes March 17, 2010.
4l. Approve for filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Minutes of January 20, 2010.
4m. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
4n. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes of March 10, 2010.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Resolutions No. 10-042 and 10-043
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and reported that the bond issues were sold at 11:00
a.m. this morning.
Mr. Ruff presented the Standard & Poor’s report on the City’s bond rating and discussed the
City’s AAA rating and the rating agency’s report indicating St. Louis Park’s per capita
income is 119% of state averages and 128% of national averages; the report also referenced
the City’s mix of commercial and residential development as well as the City’s continual
development and redevelopment of properties which has led to good market growth.
Mr. Ruff presented the sale report for the 2010A bond issue. He stated that the City
received six bids which can be attributed to the City’s AAA bond rating and bids were in the
range of 5.0819% to 5.334%, and interest savings amount to approximately $94,000. He
indicated that the size of the bond issue was reduced to $3.105 million because the fees were
less than anticipated. He explained that the overall true interest cost is down approximately
75 basis points, with overall debt service about $250,000 less than anticipated. He stated
that the winning bid was Baird of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the closing is scheduled for
May 7th.
Mr. Ruff then presented the sale report for the 2010B bond issue. He stated that these
bonds are tax exempt bonds with a shorter term and much lower interest rate; this bond issue
attracted eight bids and the winning bid was Wells Fargo of Charlotte, North Carolina. He
stated this bond issue will have a true interest rate of 2.6245%, or approximately 20 basis
points lower than anticipated, and the size of the bond issue has been reduced to
$5,935,000, with a closing date of May 7th.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated these two bond issues represent good fiscal management
on the part of the City and the AAA rating allows the City to save money.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-042 awarding the sale of $3,105,000 Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A, fixing their form and specifications,
directing their execution and delivery, and providing for their payment; and to adopt
Resolution No. 10-043 awarding the sale of $5,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series
2010B fixing their form and specifications, directing their execution and delivery, and
providing for their payment
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
Resolution No. 10-044
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated the applicant is proposing to acquire
some land from the Canadian Pacific Railroad because his parking lot is located on the
railroad parcel. He stated that Canadian Pacific has a policy of owning 50’ of land measured
from the centerline of their tracks, resulting in 13’ of excess land that can be sold. He
indicated this request is for a combined preliminary and final plat to shift 1,600 square feet
of land from the railroad parcel and combine it with the parcel owned by the applicant.
Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding the minimum required parking for
this office use and the applicant’s conformance with the parking requirements under the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Morrison explained that the applicant has parking available for the use of the property,
but the parking is not on the property. He added if the applicant gets the land transfer and a
parking agreement with the railroad, they will have access to that parking and the Office use
can continue to operate.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-044 approving the preliminary and final plat of the plat named “Dental
Office Addition.”
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Finkelstein abstained).
8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy
Conversion Systems (WECS)
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. He indicated that significant research was
conducted and a planning firm was hired to provide a framework for WECS regulations. He
introduced Brian Ross, principal of CR Planning, Inc. He presented the WECS draft
ordinance and stated that WECS would be allowed in commercial, office, and industrial
districts only. He stated the ordinance also includes specific performance standards,
including maximum height, number of WECS per lot, and minimum lot size. He added
that the ordinance will likely be amended from time to time as technology improves and
wind energy becomes more feasible.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Wind Energy
Conversion Systems (WECS), and set the second reading for May 3, 2010.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to electronic signs
and minor changes regarding bufferyards and outdoor dining areas
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. He stated the ordinance amendments include
updated definitions for electronic signs, language has been added prohibiting special effects
such as scrolling, and the brightness standards have been updated pursuant to industry
standards of 5,000 nits during the day and 500 nits at night. He explained that signs
installed after the adoption of the ordinance cannot exceed .3 above ambient light levels, and
this method is the preferred method of measuring brightness for new signs because it
incorporates new technology that automatically adjusts the brightness level throughout the
day and night. He stated that the ordinance also includes special provisions for electronic
signs that establish a maximum sign face of 20’ in residential districts and 40’ in all other
zoning districts and no more than one electronic sign face shall be visible from the same side.
He added the ordinance requires a message to be displayed for at least three seconds and
messages must change instantaneously with no special effects.
Mr. Morrison presented the proposed amendments related to bufferyards and indicated that
the amendments are intended as housekeeping changes. He stated the amendment proposes
to prohibit outdoor seating when adjacent to a building with a residential dwelling on the
main floor.
Councilmember Ross stated that the proposed revisions to the electronic sign ordinance do
not address the number of signs allowable within a particular radius.
Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance contains no limitations as to the amount of
electronic signs other than the amount of total signage allowed for the property.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the three second message is too short, despite
the fact that this appears to be the industry standard. She stated she felt these signs are
distracting to drivers and she is much more interested in promoting the safety of drivers than
in regulating how quickly electronic signs can change messages. She stated she cannot
support the three second requirement and felt the issue needs additional research and
discussion. She pointed out that several of the Planning Commissioners expressed that same
reservation. She also expressed concern regarding signs that are lit all night and did not
understand why businesses that are not open 24 hours a day should have their signs lit. She
proposed to send the ordinance back to staff for further refinement and suggested that the
Council not take action on this tonight.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2010
Councilmember Santa asked how the standards in the ordinance will be enforced based on
existing sign owners and new sign owners. She expressed concern about consistent
enforcement of the ordinance.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff introduced the proposed standards to all business owners in
the City and all but one property owner was willing to comply with the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Finkelstein pointed out that the City Council has had two separate
discussions regarding this ordinance and the proposed amendments were passed by the
Planning Commission on 6-1 vote.
Councilmember Omodt requested that the record reflect that his company has done work
with electronic sign companies in the past.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to electronic
signs, bufferyards and outdoor dining areas and set the second reading for May 3, 2010.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Lenox spaghetti dinner on April 23rd at 4:30 p.m.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 26, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:31 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), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), City Clerk
(Ms. Stroth), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Ginny Gelms, City of Minneapolis Director of Elections, and Roger Knutson, Minneapolis
City Attorney’s Office
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 10, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for May 10, 2010.
2. Ranked Choice Voting
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and introduced Ginny Gelms, City of Minneapolis Director of
Elections, and City Attorney Roger Knutson.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated updated information on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has been
requested for council discussion particularly due to the 2009 Minneapolis RCV Election and the
related Minnesota Supreme Court ruling.
Councilmember Omodt stated the City has always run a good election with high integrity and he
did not feel St. Louis Park should be a further testing ground for hand counting of ballots.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he did not feel that RCV would work well in the City and
suggested the City consider eliminating the requirement for municipal primary elections. He stated
he felt that RCV would add another level of confusion for voters.
Ms. Gelms provided historical background regarding the 2009 Minneapolis RCV election. She
stated that Minneapolis put out a request for proposals for equipment required to hold the RCV
election, but no proposals received met the State and Federal certification requirements. She
discussed the implementation activities since 2006 involved in the adoption of the ordinance, ballot
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 26, 2010
language and design, feasibility testing, public education, development of hand count procedures,
and development of an equipment and process testing plan and protocol.
Ms. Stroth stated that the City conducts the School Board elections. If the City chose to use Ranked
Choice Voting, it would result in voters voting two different methods for city offices and school
board offices on the same ballot.
Ms. Gelms indicated the voter survey results which showed that by and large, people liked the
experience, they understood the process, and voters who turned out were not confused. She
discussed the spoiled ballot and error rates and the administrative costs involved.
Discussion took place regarding other St. Louis Park election regulations of signatures required for
candidate filing, municipal primary elections, and municipal elections being held in the odd years.
It was the consensus of the City Council that no changes would be made to the City’s voting
method at this time, and to continue with the current regulations and requirements for St. Louis
Park municipal elections as stated in the City Charter.
3. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening reminded Council of the 2010 Home Remodeling Tour scheduled for Sunday,
May 2nd from 12:00-4:00 p.m.
Mr. Harmening reported that staff met with the School District on Friday to discuss the process for
Eliot and Cedar Manor schools. He advised that a neighborhood meeting will be scheduled in mid
to late May for the purpose of explaining the process, including the formation of a task force. He
stated the goal is to have the task force work through the summer months and to have something for
the School Board and Council in September or October. He added that the City has sent a letter to
property owners around the Eliot and Cedar Manor properties informing them of this process.
Mr. Harmening discussed the sex offender issue in the Minikahda Vista and Browndale
neighborhoods and reported that a neighborhood meeting was held with residents; following that
meeting, staff invited representatives from the Department of Corrections to meet with leaders of the
two neighborhoods on May 5 to allow them to ask further questions.
Councilmember Ross stated that an issue has been raised with respect to the dog park in her ward,
and a resident is complaining about noise as well as the lack of privacy. She stated she has met with
city staff regarding the possibility of raising the level of the berm and planting additional shrubbery.
She indicated that staff researched the possibility of installing an approximate 100’ fence, which
would cost between $5,000 and $6,000. She stated one of the concerns raised by the resident
appears to be that people are not observing the posted hours in the dog park.
The Council asked that staff place this on the May 1st Study Session for further discussion.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 26, 2010
The West End Redevelopment Contract Report
Based on a staff report in the agenda packet on the West End project, Councilmember Mavity
requested that the Council have a further discussion regarding how and when it is appropriate for
the City to promote affordable housing units in large scale developments. She also requested that
staff address industry standard definitions for affordable housing during this discussion.
Councilmember Omodt stated that the last time the Council reviewed its affordable housing criteria,
the City was oversubscribed pursuant to Met Council guidelines. He indicated he is opposed to
concentrated affordable housing because it appears to segregate the City’s schools.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated it would be helpful for Council to have the most current data
regarding the scope and to what extent affordable housing exists in the community.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he felt the issue was worthy of a policy discussion by Council.
Mr. Harmening stated that based upon the previous policy direction of the Council, staff does not
believe there was a policy direction to somehow incent or require the West End developer to put in
some affordable housing or workforce housing component. He advised that staff will be bringing to
the Council a request to amend the Development Agreement to allow housing as a land use option
in this development. He stated if the Council, as part of that decision, wants to consider an
affordability component, that represents a shift in policy on this project and the need for further
Council discussion to occur. He added this policy discussion can focus on the West End project
alone, or also in terms of citywide affordable housing.
It was the consensus of the City Council to have this policy discussion brought forward at a future
meeting.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to look at exploring what it means to have a policy in
place that provides incentives for developers to put in scattered site affordable housing as a way of
avoiding a project-based concentration of poverty.
Councilmember Ross stated she would like to have some information regarding Federal government
guidelines.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger acknowledged Councilmember Omodt’s valid concerns. She indicated she
would like an update from staff on whether the City has a surplus of affordable housing. She stated
it is difficult to know how to approach the West End project without knowing the bigger picture
city-wide.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that it would be helpful for Council’s discussion to have a
definition of affordable housing, how affordable housing is defined and by whom, as well as a
definition of work force housing. He stated it would also be helpful to have statistics regarding how
much low income or affordable housing has been created in the City in the last five years.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes April 26, 2010
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will provide a housing affordability report to Council in May or
June; in the meantime, staff will advise the West End developer that the Council is giving
consideration to housing in this project.
Councilmember Omodt called for a point of order and stated that the Council should wait to have
further discussion on this topic at a future study session.
Communications continued
Councilmember Omodt stated that he, along with Councilmembers Finkelstein and Ross, attended
the emergency exercise last Saturday. He stated it was great to see how well the fire departments and
other agencies interacted. He congratulated City staff on their planning and execution of the
emergency exercise.
Mr. Harmening stated that the City needs to update its emergency plan and as that is done, staff will
work with Council on roles and responsibilities of elected officials and staff.
Mr. Zwilling stated that all of the partners involved in the exercise wanted to document the exercise,
including the planning process; as a result, staff will be producing a 20 minute documentary film to
be used as a training tool for all the agencies involved.
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. March, 2010 Monthly Financial Report
5. First Quarter Investment Report (January – March, 2010)
6. Fire Station Project Update
7. The West End Redevelopment Contract Update
8. Minority-owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
9. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2010
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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 Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(WECS).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the second reading of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to
Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the city adopt ordinances to regulate alternative wind energy sources?
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission & City Council Review:
The City’s WECS regulations and ordinances were first discussed at a Council study session on
March 23, 2009, and staff was directed to update and clarify the city ordinances pertaining to
WECS. Since the March 23rd meeting, staff researched WECS, and hired CR Planning, LLC, a
planning firm that specializes in alternative energy systems. The research resulted in a report
outlining the feasibility and opportunities for WECS in St. Louis Park. The report and draft
ordinances were the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 27, 2010
and the ordinance was recommended to the Council for approval.
First Reading by City Council:
The Council adopted the first reading of the proposed amendments on April 19, 2010. It was noted
that the ordinance may be amended in the future as WECS technology improves resulting in more
efficient systems and less potential for creating nuisances.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Research on wind energy conversion systems is consistent with the Council’s Vision Strategic
Direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.”
Attachments: Proposed ordinance amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion
Systems
Summary for publication
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
ORDINANCE NO.______-10
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 and 36-369
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. 10-9-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4 and 36-369 are hereby amended
as follows. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
Wind energy conversion system (WECS) means all necessary devices that together convert wind
energy into electricity, including the rotor, nacelle, generator, tower, electrical components,
foundation, transformer, and electrical cabling from the tower to building or substation(s) and their
support facilities.
Wind energy conversion system, building mounted means a wind energy conversion system that
is attached to a building for structural support.
Wind energy conversion system tower means a support structure to which the nacelle and rotor
are attached.
Wind energy conversion system height means the distance measured from the lowest exterior
grade at the base of the WECS to the highest point of any component of a WECS.
***
Sec. 36-369. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS).
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum requirements for the
size, placement and maintenance of wind energy systems by adoption of regulations governing all
wind energy systems in the city.
(b) Findings. The City finds that:
(1) While there is limited opportunity for wind power generation in St. Louis Park, the City may
have some sites that have the right characteristics of topography, land cover, and lack of
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
turbulence for the land owner to consider wind energy as an option for sustainability. These
sites tend to be large open areas typical of commercial, industrial or park properties.
(2) Wind energy systems have the potential for nuisance and safety considerations including
structural reliability, visual impacts, bird and bat kills, noise, shadow flicker, and ice throw.
Therefore, careful consideration must be given when siting a wind energy conversion system.
(3) Review of regulations may be appropriate as the WECS technology improves and changes
resulting in alternative energy systems that are viable for St. Louis Park and greatly diminish the
potential for being a nuisance to adjacent properties or the community.
(c) Standards by Zoning District. Table 36-369A lists in which zoning districts WECS
are allowed. The table also identifies, by zoning district, the maximum allowed height, the
maximum number of WECS allowed per lot and the minimum required lot size.
Table 36-369A
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Height Limit (feet)*
District
Permitted,
up to
Conditional
Use, up to
Max. # of
WECS per lot*
Minimum Lot Size
(acres)
C-2 110 170 2 1.5
O 110 170 2 1.5
I-P 110 199 4 1.5
I-G 110 199 4 1.5
* The height and number of systems per lot is dependent on meeting the setback
requirements.
(d) Setbacks. WECS shall meet the following setback requirements:
(1) At least 110% of the WECS height from all property lines.
(2) At least 100% of the WECS height from other WECS.
(3) At least 20 feet from principal buildings.
(4) The furthest reach of the blade must be at least 30 feet from the ground and any other
obstruction.
(e) Design requirements. All WECS shall meet the following design requirement:
(1) Monopole tower. All towers shall be of a free standing monopole type that does not utilize
guyed wires or any other means to support the tower.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(2) Roof mounting. Roof mounted WECS are prohibited.
(3) Minimize visual impact. WECS design and location shall minimize visual impact.
(4) Color and finish. All WECS shall be white, grey or another non-obtrusive color. Blades may be
black in order to facilitate deicing. Finishes shall be matt or non-reflective.
(5) Tower lighting. WECS shall not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the FAA
or other federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
(6) Signs and displays. The use of any portion of a WECS for displaying flags and signs, other than
warning or equipment information signs, is prohibited.
(7) Associated equipment. Ground equipment associated with a WECS shall be housed in a
structure. Structures housing equipment shall meet the architectural design standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. Control wiring and power-lines shall be wireless or underground.
(8) Braking system required. All WECS shall have an automatic braking, governing or feathering
system to prevent uncontrolled rotation, overspeeding and excessive pressure on the tower
structure, rotor blades and turbine components.
(9) Design height. The applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed height of the WECS
does not exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system.
(10) Interconnection agreement. The applicant shall provide a copy of the utility notification
requirements for interconnection, unless the applicant intends, and so states on the application,
that the system will not be connected to the electricity grid.
(11) Technology standards. WECS must meet the minimum standards of a WECS certification
program recognized by the American Wind Energy Association, such as AWEA’s Small Wind
Turbine Performance and Safety Standard, the Emerging Technologies program of the
California Energy Commission, or other 3rd party standards acceptable to the City.
(f) Permits required. In addition to the information and permits required elsewhere in
this Code, applications for a WECS shall include the following information unless it is determined
by the Zoning Administrator that certain information is not required based upon the nature of the
proposed WECS:
(1) A dimensioned drawing that illustrates the total WECS height, including the footings and
tower width.
(2) A site plan illustrating that the proposed WECS complies with all setbacks and other
requirements affecting where a WECS can be located.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(3) A report that describes decibels at varying wind speeds for a set distance from the turbine, up to
the cut-out wind speed.
(4) Additional information requested by the Zoning Administrator necessary to evaluate the
request.
(g) Noise. Audible sound due to wind energy system operations shall comply with the
standards governing noise contained in the City of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances.
(h) Abandonment and decommissioning. If the WES remains nonfunctional or
inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed abandoned and shall
constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a
demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including foundations
to below natural grade and transmission equipment.
***
Secs. 36-369370--36-400. Reserved.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-9-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing March 17, 2010
First Reading April 19, 2010
Second Reading May 3, 2010
Date of Publication May 13, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect May 28, 2010
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____-10
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 36-4 AND 36-369
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS
This ordinance states that amendments will be made to the Zoning Ordinance to define Wind
Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), identify the manner in which they are permitted, where they
are permitted and to establish performance and design standards.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 13, 2010
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to electronic signs and minor changes
regarding bufferyards and outdoor dining areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve second reading of the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to
electronic signs, bufferyards and outdoor dining areas and approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the city adopt ordinances to update regulations and performance standards for electronic
signs and outdoor dining areas?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Proposed is an amendment to Section 36-362, along with others, of the zoning ordinance,
pertaining to signs to establish performance standards for electronic signs, and amendments to the
zoning ordinance regarding the location of outdoor dining areas adjacent to residential uses and to
correct errors in the code relating to references to bufferyards.
BACKGROUND:
A public hearing was conducted on March 17, 2010. No comments were received at the hearing
and the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-1). The Council adopted the first reading
of the proposed amendments on April 19, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary for publication
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
ORDINANCE NO.______-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-162, 36-193, 36-194,
36-243, 36-361, 36-362, 36-403, and 36-405
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. 10-10-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-162, 36-193, 36-194, 36-243, 36,-
361, 36-362, 36-403, and 36-405 are hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-162. Restrictions and performance standards.
***
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (c)(7), (c)(8), (c)(9) and (c)(10) (d) and (e) of
this section, the listed terms are defined as follows:
Back yard means the area between a line created by extending the rear face of the principal building
and the rear lot line.
Front yard means the area between a line created by extending the front face of the principal
building and the street in front of the house.
Side yard means area between the front and back building walls and the side lot line.
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a C-1 district:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the
building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if
a residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
***
(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in any C-2 district:
***
(7) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the
building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if
a residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall
***
(4) Group Daycare/Nursery Schools.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and
such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
***
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines
and shall be screened with a bufferyard D.
***
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
Section 36-361 Off Street Parking areas
***
(m) Off-street loading facilities.
***
(2) Loading docks, berths and facilities.
***
g. Screening. All berths shall be screened from view from the adjoining streets with a
bufferyard F and any property in an R district. by a bufferyard F. Materials used shall
provide screening which The screening shall consist of a minimum 10-foot high wall
and landscaping, is a minimum of ten feet high when installed. Walls shall be
designed to be harmonious with the principal structure. The width of the driveway at
the property line shall be excluded from the bufferyard requirement.
***
Article VI. Non-conformities
***
Section 36-403. Definitions.
Nonconforming bufferyards landscaping means bufferyards landscaping that which does not
conform to the distance, height, screening, density, material or planting requirements of this chapter.
***
Section 36-405. Special requirements.
***
(7) Nonconforming parking.
***
c. Uses with nonconforming parking in terms of numbers of stalls shall need not be
required to provide additional parking to bring the use into compliance if such
parking would occupy required yards or interfere with screening requirements
bufferyards.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
(8) Nonconforming landscaping bufferyards. If buildings were existing on a parcel of land on
the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived which, due to their
location, make construction of the required landscaping bufferyards impossible, then an
alternative landscaping plan may be approved as outlined in section 364. the following
reductions in the bufferyard requirements may be made if the required bufferyard is:
a. A bufferyard B and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, a bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using 100 percent of the
required plant units.
b. Either A or B and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F1 fence
and 50 percent of the plant units required for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard shall
be installed.
c. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F2 fence plus 50
plant units for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard.
d. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F4 fence
shall be installed plus 25 plant units for each 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
e. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least ten feet but less than 15
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using a BW1 berm wall
plus 75 plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
f. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall and 50
plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
g. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, the bufferyard
shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall plus 25 plant units per 100
linear feet of required bufferyard.
***
Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations.
***
(b) Findings. The city finds that:
***
(7) Electronic signs, including video display signs, are highly visible from long distances and
at very wide viewing angles both day and night and are designed to catch the eye of
persons in their vicinity and hold it for extended periods of time. If left uncontrolled,
electronic signs, including video display signs, are highly distracting to drivers and driver
distraction continues to be a significant underlying cause of traffic accidents.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
***
(c) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates
a different meaning:
***
Sign, changing means a sign whose message can be readily changed, either by manual or
automatic means.
Sign, Electronic - any characteristic of a sign that appears to have movement or that appears to
change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its
components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure, or any
other component of the sign. This includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or
animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through
digital input, digital ink or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a
series of images, displays or video.
Sign, flashing means any illuminated sign, which is not a changing sign which emits an
intermittent a blinking or flashing light, or creates the illusion of intermittent blinking or flashing
light by means of animation.
***
Sign, rotating means a sign or a portion of a sign which moves in a rotating, oscillating or similar
manner other than changing signs.
***
(e) Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited in all use districts:
***
(11) Signs, including the sign structure or any other component of the sign, that rotate,
revolve, scroll, move, flash, blink, fade, or are animated.
***
(f) General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted
accessory use in all use districts:
(1) Permit required. A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any sign.
***
c. Sign permits shall be null and void if the sign is not installed 180 days after the issuance
of a permit.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
***
(6) Lighting. All signs must meet the following standards: Direct rays or glare of light from
an illuminated sign shall not be visible from public right-of-way or property other than
that on which the illuminated sign is located. Any external source of illumination must be
provided with shields or lenses which concentrate the light onto the sign.
a. Direct rays or glare of light from an illuminated sign shall not be visible from public
right-of-way or property other than that on which the illuminated sign is located.
Any external source of illumination must be provided with shields or lenses which
concentrate the light onto the sign.
b. Brightness Standards:
1. The sign shall not be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
2. The sign shall not be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a
motor vehicle.
3. The sign shall not be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
4. The sign shall not exceed a maximum illumination of 5000 nits (candelas per
square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits
(candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign’s
face;
5. Electronic signs installed after May 28, 2010 shall meet the following standards:
a. A mechanism that immediately turns off the sign if it malfunctions.
b. A mechanism that automatically adjusts the illuminative brightness of the
display according to existing ambient light conditions.
c. The sign shall not exceed a brightness level of 0.3 foot candles above ambient
light as measured from 100 feet from the sign. All measurements shall be
taken with the meter pointing at the sign and perpendicular to the sign face.
The ambient light level shall be taken with the sign off. The sign brightness
level shall be taken with the sign displaying a full white screen.
6. The electronic sign must be certified as complying with the brightness standards
and the malfunction provision. The Certification must come from the sign
manufacturer or other qualified individual and must be submitted with the sign
permit application and at any time thereafter as requested by the city.
7. The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the
brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment
must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the city.
***
(h) Special provisions. In addition to the general provisions contained in subsection (f) of this
section, these special provisions apply to the following types of signs:
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
***
(8) Electronic signs. Electronic signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
a. The sign face shall not exceed:
1. 20 square feet in a residential district and the Park and Open Space District.
2. 40 square feet in all other districts.
b. The maximum sign face established above shall not be in excess of the maximum sign
area allowed in table 36-362A.
c. No more than one sign face may be visible from any same location off-site.
d. Messages and/or images must be displayed for at least three seconds.
e. Electronic signs existing on May 28, 2010 must comply with this section, except that
electronic signs that exceed the maximum size limit above may continue as a non-
conforming sign as to size.
f. Messages or displays must change instantaneously. Using any type of special effect to
change from one message or display to another is prohibited.
(i) Nonconforming signs.
***
(5) Billboards.
a. Any billboard in existence as of the date of the ordinance from which this section is
derived was adopted may remain in place if it is not increased in sign area or height
and is maintained in conformance with the general provisions of this chapter. The
following are not permitted on billboards:
1. Flashing signs.
2. Changing signs. , unless they are limited to a display of either time, temperature
or stock market indices.
3. Rotating signs.
4. Electronic signs.
***
Sec. 36-162. Restrictions and performance standards.
***
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (c)(7), (c)(8), (c)(9) and (c)(10) (d) and (e) of
this section, the listed terms are defined as follows:
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
Back yard means the area between a line created by extending the rear face of the principal building
and the rear lot line.
Front yard means the area between a line created by extending the front face of the principal
building and the street in front of the house.
Side yard means area between the front and back building walls and the side lot line.
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a C-1 district:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the
building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if
a residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
***
(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in any C-2 district:
***
(7) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the
building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if
a residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 10
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall
***
(4) Group Daycare/Nursery Schools.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and
such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
***
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines
and shall be screened with a bufferyard D.
***
Section 36-361 Off Street Parking areas
***
(m) Off-street loading facilities.
***
(2) Loading docks, berths and facilities.
***
g. Screening. All berths shall be screened from view from the adjoining streets with a
bufferyard F and any property in an R district. by a bufferyard F. Materials used shall
provide screening which The screening shall consist of a minimum 10-foot high wall
and landscaping, is a minimum of ten feet high when installed. Walls shall be
designed to be harmonious with the principal structure. The width of the driveway at
the property line shall be excluded from the bufferyard requirement.
***
Article VI. Non-conformities
***
Section 36-403. Definitions.
Nonconforming bufferyards landscaping means bufferyards landscaping that which does not
conform to the distance, height, screening, density, material or planting requirements of this chapter.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 11
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
***
Section 36-405. Special requirements.
***
(7) Nonconforming parking.
***
c. Uses with nonconforming parking in terms of numbers of stalls shall need not be
required to provide additional parking to bring the use into compliance if such
parking would occupy required yards or interfere with screening requirements
bufferyards.
(8) Nonconforming landscaping bufferyards. If buildings were existing on a parcel of land on
the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived which, due to their
location, make construction of the required landscaping bufferyards impossible, then an
alternative landscaping plan may be approved as outlined in section 364. the following
reductions in the bufferyard requirements may be made if the required bufferyard is:
a. A bufferyard B and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, a bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using 100 percent of the
required plant units.
b. Either A or B and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F1 fence
and 50 percent of the plant units required for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard shall
be installed.
c. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F2 fence plus 50
plant units for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard.
d. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F4 fence
shall be installed plus 25 plant units for each 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
e. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least ten feet but less than 15
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using a BW1 berm wall
plus 75 plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
f. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall and 50
plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
g. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, the bufferyard
shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall plus 25 plant units per 100
linear feet of required bufferyard.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 12
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-10-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing March 17, 2010
First Reading April 19, 2010
Second Reading May 3, 2010
Date of Publication May 13, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect May 28, 2010
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 13
Subject: 2nd Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Electronic Signs, Bufferyards, Outdoor Dining Areas
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.________ -10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-162, 36-193, 36-194,
36-243, 36-361, 36-362, 36-403, and 36-405
This ordinance states that amendments will be made to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signs to
establish performance standards for electronic signs, the location of outdoor dining areas adjacent to
residential uses, and to correct errors in the code relating to references to bufferyards.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 13, 2010
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
The Towers at West End Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Time Extensions.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve an extension until May 31, 2011 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and final
planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City allow Duke Realty additional time to file applications for final plat and final PUD
approval for The Towers at West End?
BACKGROUND:
Under the zoning code, Duke Realty is required to submit an application for final plat and final
PUD within 90 days of City Council preliminary plat and preliminary PUD approvals. The 90-day
deadline was set to expire on May 31, 2009. On April 20, 2009, the City Council approved an
extension until May 31, 2010. The City has received a written request from Duke Realty for
another extension.
The letter simply states, “This letter is to request a 1 year extension (May 31st, 2011) to file final
plat and final PUD applications for our Towers at West End Development. Market conditions have
continued to be very challenging in the past year and our local office is unable to start speculative
office development at this time. We have continued interest in build-to-suit prospects and will keep
you updated as to when a project might begin.”
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
Resolution amending Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement (HIA) Fee
Resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution amending Resolution No. 09-129 approving a Housing
Improvement Fee for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the resolution as proposed?
The City Council established the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA and approved the
Fee Resolution in October 2009. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the document to
reflect the reduced fee assessment for Sunset Ridge Condominium owners based on lower than
anticipated financing and construction costs.
BACKGROUND:
• Establish HIA. The City Council was petitioned by a majority of Sunset Ridge Condominium
owners to establish an HIA and impose fees for the purpose of making common area
improvements. On October 19, 2009, the Council established the Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association HIA and approved a resolution to impose fees.
• Bond Sale.
On April 5, 2010 the City Council approved the sale of $3,125,000 Taxable G.O. Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2010A to be used to make capital improvements to the
Sunset Ridge Condominiums.
On April 19, 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution awarding the sale of approximately
$3,125,000 Taxable G.O. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2010A.
Since the date of adoption of the Fee, the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association received lower
than anticipated final bids for construction of the Housing Improvements and the City received
favorable bid offers for the bonds. These actions resulted in a reduction of the amount needed to
finance the Housing Improvements and pay debt service on the Bonds.
Based on the reduced amount needed to finance the project, the City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and
Associates, prepared the final fee for each housing unit with the Sunset Ridge HIA. The average
total reduction is approximately $300.00 per unit.
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
Twenty percent, or 50 of the owners, did prepay the assessment in full during the prepayment
period and will be receiving a refund averaging $300. The remaining owners will realize the lower
fee on their real estate tax statements over time.
The amended resolution documents the final fee assessment to owners and will be recorded with
Hennepin County Director of Taxation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no additional financial or budget consideration for the City. However, Sunset Ridge owners
will realize a slight reduction from the original estimated fee. Basically, all costs of the HIA are
funded with the loan. The administrative costs incurred by the City are covered by an
administrative fee of one-half of one percent of the project cost which equals $20,143. The
underwriting, bond issuance costs, and all other soft costs are all included in the loan amount, and a
105% debt service coverage is included.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Sunset Ridge Condominium Owners’ HIA improvements are consistent with Vision St. Louis
Park and the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park is committed to
providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool addresses affordably valued,
aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock. The improvements specifically
address the focus of property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. The
improvements also preserve affordable single-family home ownership by making the improvements
affordable using a low interest long-term loan.
Attachments: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 09-129
Resolution No. 09-129 Approving a Housing Improvement Fee
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 09-129 APPROVING
A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE SUNSET RIDGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or
in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. By Ordinance No. 2377-09, effective as of December 3, 2009 (the "Enabling
Ordinance"), the Council established the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area in order to facilitate certain improvements (the “Housing Improvements”) to
property known as the "Sunset Ridge Condominium Association", all in accordance with the Housing
Improvement Area policy.
1.04. On October 5, 2009, following receipt of a petition requesting a public hearing on the
imposition of a housing improvement fee for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area (“Sunset Ridge HIA”) and a duly noticed public hearing regarding adoption of a
resolution imposing such a fee, at which all persons, including owners of property within Sunset Ridge,
were given an opportunity to be heard, the Council adopted Resolution No. 09-129 (the “Fee
Resolution”), imposing a housing improvement fee (the “Fee”) on the owners of housing units within
the Sunset Ridge HIA.
1.05. Pursuant to the Act, the City mailed notice to the owners of housing units within the
Sunset Ridge HIA, informing such owners of the estimated cost of the Housing Improvements and
informing them that the Fee would not exceed the amounts indicated in the Notice.
1.06. Between the date of adoption of the Fee and the date hereof, the Sunset Ridge
Condominium Association received better-than-anticipated final bids for construction of the Housing
Improvements, and the City received favorable offers to purchase the City’s Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A (the “Bonds”) to finance the Housing Improvements,
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
both of which resulted in a reduction of the amount needed to finance the Housing Improvements and
pay debt service on the Bonds.
1.07. The Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the Fee Resolution in order
to reflect the final, reduced Fee and to authorize a partial rebate of any Fees prepaid by property owners
within the Sunset Ridge HIA.
Section 2. Fee Resolution Amended.
2.01. The City hereby approves an amendment to the Fee Resolution to revise Exhibit A to
reflect a finalized fee for each housing unit within the Sunset Ridge HIA (the “Final Fee”), which Final
Fee is imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership)
of each unit, and imposed for Limited Common Elements based on the actual cost of windows and
doors for each unit, all as prescribed in the Declaration Establishing a Plan For Apartment Ownership
Pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Condominium Act for Sunset Ridge Condominium.
2.02. The Final Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount shown under the
heading “Annual Fee” in Exhibit A. The Final Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in
2011, for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual
Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Final Fee. Interest shall begin
to accrue on January 1, 2011 at an annual interest rate of 5.6 percent per annum. The Annual Fee shall
be structured such that estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess
of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds.
2.03. The period authorized for prepayment of the Fee expired on March 31, 2010, and
therefore owners of any housing unit in the Sunset Ridge HIA may no longer prepay any portion of the
Final Fee. The City shall promptly reimburse the owner of any housing unit who has prepaid the Fee
prior to imposition of the Final Fee, in the amount of the pro rata share of the reduction in the Fee
amount.
2.04. Exhibit A attached hereto, representing the Final Fee imposed against each housing unit
for which the Final Fee has not been prepaid, shall be mailed to all housing unit owners within the
Sunset Ridge HIA within 30 days after issuance of the Bonds.
2.05. The Final Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for
payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.15 and
428A.05. As set forth therein, the Final Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies
imposed under any law or charter.
2.06. A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to
administration required in order for the Annual Fee to be made payable at the same time and in the
same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
Section 3. Effective Date.
3.01. This Resolution shall be effective upon the adoption hereof.
Section 4. Filing of Final Fee.
4.01. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with Exhibit A
hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation, no later than December 1, 2010, to be recorded
on the property tax lists of the county for taxes payable in 2011 and thereafter.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this __ day of May, 2010.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
Housing Improvement Area - Sunset Ridge HIA
Rebate For Prepaid Assessments and Final Assessments - 4-27-10
Association Unit No.
Percentage
Interest
Total Common Area
Construction Cost
Total Financing &
Soft Costs
Total Construction
Cost for Doors &
Windows
Total Costs
(BEFORE BOND
SALE)
Total Costs (AFTER
BOND SALE)
Rebate To
Owners For
Prepaid
Assessments
Annual Fee
(105% of Total
Costs)
2010-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $298 $0.00
2010-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2010-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $4,610 $21,150 $20,852 $298 $0.00
2010-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2010-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $243 $0.00
2010-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2010-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2010-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2010-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $215 $0.00
2010-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $215 $0.00
2020-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2020-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2020-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2020-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $1,813.45
2020-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2020-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $1,813.45
2020-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2020-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2020-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2020-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2030-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $298 $0.00
2030-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2030-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2030-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2030-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2030-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2030-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2030-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2030-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2030-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2040-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2040-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2040-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2040-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $1,813.45
2040-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2040-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2040-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2040-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2040-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2040-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2050-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $1,813.45
2050-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2050-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,561 $23,101 $22,803 $298 $0.00
2050-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,987 $22,527 $22,230 $1,875.63
2050-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2050-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $298 $0.00
2050-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2050-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $215 $0.00
2050-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2050-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2060-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,250 $21,791 $21,493 $1,813.45
2060-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2060-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2060-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $298 $0.00
2060-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $3,738 $17,213 $16,971 $1,431.91
2060-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $5,856 $22,397 $22,099 $1,864.58
2060-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,362 $15,303 $15,088 $1,273.08
2060-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2060-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $1,324.21
2060-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $3,968 $15,909 $15,694 $215 $0.00
2100-11 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $180 $0.00
2100-12 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $1,161.03
2100-13 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,113 $19,119 $18,849 $1,590.36
2100-14 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $3,502 $18,508 $18,238 $1,538.86
2100-21 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2100-22 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $176 $1,034.86
2100-23 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
2100-24 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $267 $0.00
2100-31 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2100-32 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2100-33 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
2100-34 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
2110-11 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,238 $13,216 $13,036 $1,099.95
2110-12 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $1,161.03
2110-13 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,113 $19,119 $18,849 $1,590.36
2110-14 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,113 $19,119 $18,849 $1,590.36
2110-21 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,650 $12,427 $12,251 $176 $0.00
2110-22 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2110-23 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
2110-24 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
SUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
Poplars
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
Page 6
2110-31 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,650 $12,427 $12,251 $1,033.68
2110-32 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $176 $0.00
2110-33 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $1,622.79
2110-34 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,070 $18,875 $18,609 $1,570.11
2120-11 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,238 $13,216 $13,036 $1,099.95
2120-12 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $1,161.03
2120-13 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,113 $19,119 $18,849 $1,590.36
2120-14 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,113 $19,119 $18,849 $1,590.36
2120-21 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,650 $12,427 $12,251 $176 $0.00
2120-22 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2120-23 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $267 $0.00
2120-24 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,070 $18,875 $18,609 $1,570.11
2120-31 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,650 $12,427 $12,251 $1,033.68
2120-32 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2120-33 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,695 $19,500 $19,233 $267 $0.00
2120-34 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,070 $18,875 $18,609 $1,570.11
2130-11 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $180 $0.00
2130-12 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $1,161.03
2130-13 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,100 $19,106 $18,836 $1,589.26
2130-14 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,109 $19,115 $18,844 $1,590.00
2130-21 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2130-22 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2130-23 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,044 $18,849 $18,583 $267 $0.00
2130-24 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,682 $19,487 $19,220 $1,621.69
2130-31 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2130-32 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2130-33 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,044 $18,849 $18,583 $1,567.91
2130-34 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,057 $18,862 $18,596 $1,569.01
2140-11 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,238 $13,216 $13,036 $1,099.95
2140-12 0.003278 $8,871 $927 $3,962 $13,940 $13,760 $1,161.03
2140-13 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,719 $19,725 $19,455 $1,641.50
2140-14 0.00493 $13,342 $1,394 $4,109 $19,115 $18,844 $1,590.00
2140-21 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,637 $12,414 $12,238 $1,032.58
2140-22 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2140-23 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,682 $19,487 $19,220 $1,621.69
2140-24 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,057 $18,862 $18,596 $1,569.01
2140-31 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,637 $12,414 $12,238 $1,032.58
2140-32 0.003212 $8,692 $908 $2,664 $12,441 $12,265 $1,034.86
2140-33 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,682 $19,487 $19,220 $1,621.69
2140-34 0.004864 $13,163 $1,375 $4,057 $18,862 $18,596 $267 $0.00
2150-11 0.003574 $9,672 $1,011 $3,388 $14,267 $14,071 $1,187.23
2150-12 0.003574 $9,672 $1,011 $3,388 $14,267 $14,071 $1,187.23
2150-13 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2150-14 0.003508 $9,493 $992 $2,058 $12,736 $12,544 $1,058.37
2150-21 0.003533 $9,561 $999 $3,388 $14,142 $13,948 $1,176.89
2150-22 0.003449 $9,334 $975 $3,388 $13,886 $13,697 $1,155.71
2150-23 0.003424 $9,266 $968 $2,058 $12,480 $12,293 $188 $0.00
2150-24 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2150-25 0.003549 $9,604 $1,004 $2,058 $12,861 $12,666 $1,068.71
2150-26 0.003549 $9,604 $1,004 $2,058 $12,861 $12,666 $1,068.71
2150-27 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $3,388 $13,701 $13,515 $1,140.33
2150-28 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $2,664 $12,977 $12,791 $1,079.25
2150-31 0.003283 $8,885 $928 $2,782 $12,775 $12,595 $1,062.71
2150-32 0.003283 $8,885 $928 $3,388 $13,381 $13,201 $1,113.84
2150-33 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2150-34 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2150-35 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2150-36 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2150-37 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $3,388 $13,701 $13,515 $186 $0.00
2150-38 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $2,782 $13,095 $12,909 $1,089.19
2160-11 0.003533 $9,561 $999 $3,388 $14,142 $13,948 $1,176.89
2160-12 0.003533 $9,561 $999 $3,388 $14,142 $13,948 $1,176.89
2160-13 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2160-14 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2160-21 0.003409 $9,226 $964 $2,782 $13,158 $12,972 $1,094.48
2160-22 0.003409 $9,226 $964 $3,388 $13,765 $13,578 $1,145.62
2160-23 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2160-24 0.003384 $9,158 $957 $2,058 $12,358 $12,173 $1,027.10
2160-25 0.003549 $9,604 $1,004 $2,058 $12,861 $12,666 $1,068.71
2160-26 0.003549 $9,604 $1,004 $2,058 $12,861 $12,666 $195 $0.00
2160-27 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $2,664 $12,977 $12,791 $1,079.25
2160-28 0.003388 $9,169 $958 $3,388 $13,701 $13,515 $186 $0.00
2160-31 0.003283 $8,885 $928 $3,388 $13,381 $13,201 $180 $0.00
2160-32 0.003283 $8,885 $928 $3,388 $13,381 $13,201 $180 $0.00
2160-33 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $179 $0.00
2160-34 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2160-35 0.003258 $8,817 $921 $2,058 $11,975 $11,796 $995.32
2160-36 0.003674 $9,943 $1,039 $2,058 $13,241 $13,040 $1,100.24
2160-37 0.003491 $9,447 $987 $3,388 $14,014 $13,823 $1,166.30
2160-38 0.003491 $9,447 $987 $3,388 $14,014 $13,823 $1,166.30
2170-11 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $189 $0.00
2170-12 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $189 $0.00
2170-13 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-14 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $165 $0.00
2170-21 0.003353 $9,074 $948 $3,476 $13,682 $13,499 $1,138.95
2170-22 0.003353 $9,074 $948 $3,476 $13,682 $13,499 $1,138.95
2170-23 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-24 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-25 0.003112 $8,422 $880 $1,940 $11,413 $11,242 $948.56
2170-26 0.003112 $8,422 $880 $1,940 $11,413 $11,242 $171 $0.00
2170-27 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $189 $0.00
2170-28 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $1,165.17
2170-31 0.003353 $9,074 $948 $3,476 $13,682 $13,499 $1,138.95
2170-32 0.003353 $9,074 $948 $3,476 $13,682 $13,499 $1,138.95
2170-33 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-34 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-35 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-36 0.003008 $8,140 $851 $2,630 $11,786 $11,621 $980.54
2170-37 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $189 $0.00
2170-38 0.003457 $9,355 $978 $3,476 $13,999 $13,809 $1,165.17
Aspens
Laurels
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution Page 7
2210-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2210-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2210-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2210-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,906 $23,446 $23,148 $298 $0.00
2210-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2210-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2210-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2210-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2210-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2210-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2220-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,906 $23,446 $23,148 $298 $0.00
2220-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $243 $0.00
2220-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2220-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,906 $23,446 $23,148 $1,953.11
2220-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2220-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2220-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2220-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $215 $0.00
2220-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2220-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2230-11 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,906 $23,446 $23,148 $1,953.11
2230-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $243 $0.00
2230-13 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2230-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $298 $0.00
2230-15 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2230-16 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $1,888.31
2230-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2230-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $215 $0.00
2230-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2230-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2240-11 0.004876 $13,196 $1,379 $4,975 $19,817 $19,550 $1,649.51
2240-12 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $4,921 $21,562 $21,262 $1,793.99
2240-13 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2240-14 0.005434 $14,706 $1,537 $6,138 $22,678 $22,380 $298 $0.00
2240-21 0.004861 $13,155 $1,375 $4,899 $19,695 $19,429 $1,639.29
2240-22 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $5,439 $22,080 $21,780 $300 $0.00
2240-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2240-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $215 $0.00
2240-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2240-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2250-11 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $4,921 $21,562 $21,262 $1,793.99
2250-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2250-13 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $4,921 $21,562 $21,262 $300 $0.00
2250-14 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2250-21 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $5,550 $22,190 $21,891 $1,847.02
2250-22 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $5,439 $22,080 $21,780 $1,837.69
2250-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $1,332.32
2250-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2250-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $215 $0.00
2250-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2260-11 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $4,921 $21,562 $21,262 $300 $0.00
2260-12 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $1,465.87
2260-13 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $4,921 $21,562 $21,262 $1,793.99
2260-14 0.004427 $11,981 $1,252 $4,141 $17,616 $17,373 $243 $0.00
2260-21 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $5,439 $22,080 $21,780 $1,837.69
2260-22 0.005467 $14,795 $1,546 $5,550 $22,190 $21,891 $1,847.02
2260-31 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,065 $16,005 $15,790 $215 $0.00
2260-32 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2260-33 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
2260-34 0.003923 $10,617 $1,109 $4,109 $16,050 $15,835 $1,336.08
GRAND TOTAL 100.00%$2,706,235.69 $282,784.00 $946,175.31 $3,990,000.00 $3,935,195.00 $11,563.91 $262,404.60
Willows
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution Page 8
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 9
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 09-129
RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE
FOR THE SUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION HOUSING
IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or
in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. By Ordinance No. 2377-09 adopted on the date hereof (the "Enabling Ordinance"),
the Council has established the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area in
order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association", all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy.
1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the
housing units within the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area have
filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing
improvement fee for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area.
1.05. The Council has on October 5, 2009 conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in
accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this resolution at which all persons,
including owners of property within the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. The Council finds that the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area
Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association
owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing.
1.07. Prior to the date hereof, Sunset Ridge Condominium Association (the "Condominium
Association") has submitted to the City a financial plan prepared by Reserve Advisors, Inc., an
independent third party, acceptable to the City and the Condominium Association, that provides for
the Condominium Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the
Sunset Ridge Condominium Association and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital
improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act.
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 10
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
1.08. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in
the Enabling Ordinance.
Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed.
2.01. The City hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Sunset Ridge
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), as specified
in Exhibit A attached hereto, which Housing Improvement Fee is imposed for Common Elements
based on the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit, and imposed for Limited
Common Elements based on the actual cost of windows and doors for each unit, all as prescribed in the
Declaration Establishing a Plan For Apartment Ownership Pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform
Condominium Act for Sunset Ridge Condominium.
2.02. The Council hereby finds that the Housing Improvement Fee for the Common
Elements is imposed on the basis of square footage of each unit, and that the basis for imposing the
Housing Improvement Fee for the Limited Common Elements is more fair and equitable than a fee
based on square footage or tax capacity. This finding is based on the reasoning set forth in the
Memorandum to the Council from City staff dated September 9, 2009 and on file with the City Clerk,
which Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference.
2.03. The owner of any housing unit in the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest
thereon between the effective date of this resolution and March 31, 2010. The amount of the
prepayment is shown under the headings Total Prepayment Fee in Exhibit A. Partial prepayment of the
Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer.
After expiration of the prepayment period on March 31, 2010, owners may not prepay any portion of
the Annual Fee.
2.04. If the Total Prepayment Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution and
March 31, 2010, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount
shown under the heading Annual Fee in Exhibit A. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed in
equal installments, beginning in 2011, for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is
due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total
Housing Improvement Fee. Interest shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2011 at an annual interest rate
of 5.89 percent per annum. The Annual Fee shall be structured such that estimated collection of the
Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the
principal and interest payments on the Housing Improvement Fee.
2.04. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and March 31, 2010, the
Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for
payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.15 and
428A.05. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies
or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter.
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 11
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
2.05 A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to
administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same
manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections.
3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this Resolution; notice that owners subject to the Housing
Improvement Fee have a right to veto this Resolution if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing
units within the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area file a written
objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this Resolution; and notice that a copy of this
Resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection.
Section 4. Effective Date.
4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof.
Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee.
5.01. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update of
Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists
of the county for taxes payable in 2011 and thereafter.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 19h day of October 2009.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 12
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 09-129
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 13
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
Meeting of: May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 14
Subject: Amend Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA Fee Resolution
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April 16, 2010 through April 30, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
256.00SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
256.00
139.73TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
139.73
570.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYACTION FLEET INC
240.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
810.06
1,064.72SEASON PASSES GENERAL SUPPLIESACTIVE NETWORK INC
1,064.72
325.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
325.00
810.00SPECIAL PROJECTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICEAECOM INC
810.00
237.00BOILER MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
237.00
5.81WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU
6.98WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
12.79
6,400.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
6,400.00
399.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
399.80
87.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
143.52PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
88.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
105.72ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.62VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
521.48
1,899.31SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
35.54-SUPPORT SERVICES G&A MISC REVENUE
1,863.77
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
495.56FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
495.56
502.31BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
502.31
193.10MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSAPPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS
193.10
447.36ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
447.36
1,000.002008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSARCA MINNESOTA INC
1,000.00
32.91COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
32.91
126.50GARAGE MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO
126.50
65.79PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
65.79
200.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESB & U AUTO BODY INC
200.00
42.54POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
42.54
236.16-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBEACON ATHLETICS
3,671.21PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,435.05
18.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBERBEROGLU, LINDA
18.27
93.66HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
93.66
521.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
521.09
938.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
938.00
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBROWN, ELENA
1,000.00
77.80INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGBUDGET EXTERIORS
77.80
698.75PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBUSINESS TRAINING EXPERTS
698.75WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
698.75SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
698.75STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,795.00
80.16ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESCARTRIDGE CARE
80.16
5,013.13TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
5,013.13
3,281.01PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHERCEDAR SMALL ENGINE
3,281.01
7,466.14FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
6,774.52ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
14,240.66
523.56SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
523.56
10,400.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,400.00
43.58GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
43.58
14.44-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
711.46ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
557.33ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
19.00ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
11.97HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
600.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
155.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
38.21HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
35.20FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
98.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
75.06POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
20.04POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
205.59DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
86.22NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
239.45OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
281.93OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
145.40OPERATIONSTRAINING
35.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
495.00SAFETY SERVICES SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
100.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
495.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
20.79-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
159.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
26.72BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
1,072.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER
6.43WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
576.41WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
319.68VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING
309.10STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
72.10WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
5.11SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
6,955.42
637.50CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
637.50
129.20INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
129.20
4,468.99EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
4,468.99
82.18SEALCOAT PREPARATION GENERAL SUPPLIESCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
82.18
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,736.63VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSCOUCH, GARY
1,736.63
17.05ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSECROWN MARKING INC
17.05
1,760.02OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYCUB FOODS
1,760.02
4,494.38SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUES
4,494.38
1,691.80BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
1,691.80
414.78WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIESDELI DOUBLE
414.78
14,588.00GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
16,703.14EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT
31,291.14
35.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
35.00
39.54BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDISCOUNT STEEL INC
39.54
845.69SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
845.69
861.94ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
861.94
825.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
825.00
82.34PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
82.34
398.89PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
398.89
7,305.21WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEMMANUEL SLAVIC CHURCH
7,305.21
965.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSEMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC
965.00
362.99PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESERIK'S ST LOUIS PARK STORE
362.99
207.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
207.96
150.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEFASTENAL COMPANY
150.45
133.42VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEFIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLING
133.42
24.41-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC
379.41BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
355.00
128.25TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFRESCO INC
128.25
90.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATFRONTIER PRECISION INC
45.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
135.00
501.24BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGARELICK STEEL CO
501.24
577.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
577.78
5,412.60COMM & MARKETING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGOVDELIVERY INC
5,412.60
49.63GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
47.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
97.07
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
24.08DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGRONSKI, PAM
24.08
1,730.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
1,730.00
4,000.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHAMLINE UNIVERSITY
4,000.00
32,052.00CDBG BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHENNEPIN COUNTY
32,052.00
484.04IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,724.04
8,487.20PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
4,487.20MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,974.40
2,700.00PARK IMPROVEMENT G & A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,700.00
350.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTHIPPLE, JENNIFER
350.00
394.69WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
394.69
5.22CRACK SEALING PROJECTS EQUIPMENT PARTSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
5.63DAMAGE REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.87DAMAGE REPAIR BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
435.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
27.72PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
186.07NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
96.09MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
765.40
333.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
333.26
1,576.35EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,576.35
13.04INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESICE SKATING INST AMERICA
13.04
75.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSINTL ASSOC ARSON INVESTIGATORS
75.00
541.32PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
541.32
26.65VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
26.65
760,570.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC
760,570.00
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWKAMRATH, CHRISTINE
1,500.00
3,250.02CIP PROJECTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICEKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
3,250.02
250.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKELAND ENG EQUIP CO
250.70
58.77PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSLAKES GAS CO
58.77
108.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLANO EQUIPMENT INC
108.28
9,860.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
9,860.00
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,352.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,352.00
278.92-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
394.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
115.68
60.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
60.00
1,128.76UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
1,128.76
558.52PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
558.52
650.00ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
650.00
130.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMAAO
130.00
297.03PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMARS CO, W P & R S
297.03PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
297.02VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
891.08
500.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTMARTIN, JAMES
500.00
800.00GROUNDS MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMASON-CUTTERS
800.00
120.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMEHA
120.00
60.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMEMA
60.00
87.38DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
15.92LOCATES/GOPHER ONE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
44.88IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
137.72WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
108.69PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
394.59
108.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
108.50
968.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO EROSION, INC
968.50
183.71OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC
183.71
212.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
212.00
22,063.38IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
80.16POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
22,143.54
4,669.26CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDSTATES EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY
4,669.26
785.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
785.00
630.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
630.00
1,464.01EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,464.01
25.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMINNESOTA REVENUE
25.00
105.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
105.53
50.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMSFCA
50.00
36.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
36.71
30.55GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
9.49PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
31.74DAMAGE REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,552.14PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
183.15VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,807.07
415.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO
415.00
79.67ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
157.11HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
376.47RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
72.67ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
72.67FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
470.50EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
1,103.18POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
527.02OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
72.67INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
266.79ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
904.40PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
149.39PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
366.53ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
404.17PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
78.01ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
308.45WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
72.67REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
2,253.12-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MISCELLANEOUS
234.13VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
391.87WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
183.44SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
38.93SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
4,077.62
330.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNIGP
330.00
40.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
40.00
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
194.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
194.80
103.91HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
102.44FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
39.50GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
275.18POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
43.32POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
36.20INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.88WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
25.91SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
715.34
885.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
813.54INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,698.60
17.56PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3.82WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
106.88
165.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
165.00
66.58PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPARTS PLUS
66.58
1,062.10BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
1,062.10
3.77WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
5.18WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
18.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
23.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
17.14SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
23.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
100.59
20.14-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPLANTRA INC
313.14TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
293.00
8.51WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPOKORNY CO
8.51
242.94INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESPOLK, MARLA
366.94INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
609.88
441.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
441.07
211.44WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
211.44SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
211.44SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
211.44STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
845.76
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALPRACTICAL SYSTEMS
48.00
1,023.54STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,023.54
900.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRECISION FIRE SPRINKLER INC
900.00
4,201.90PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
4,201.90
4,000.21WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
4,000.21
125.00VARIANCESZONING/SUBDIVISIONQUEBEC INVESTMENTS LLC
125.00
112.16VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
112.16
147.48IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
147.48
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,955.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUIRING EXCAVATING LLC
5,955.00
104.80IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
1,424.63COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
524.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL DATACOMMUNICATIONS
2,053.43
70.81WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
70.81SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
70.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
70.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
283.22
190.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERESTORATION AUTO GLASS NEW BRI
190.41
200.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTRICE LEADERSHIP CONSULTING, ML
200.00
1,596.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUDDY, WILLIAM
1,596.00
751.68INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGRUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE
751.68
5,350.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSAFE AIR SYSTEMS LLC
5,350.00
41.34PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
130.51MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
171.85
64.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
64.00
240.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHUG, DIANA
240.00
1,262.28PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
4,503.83SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,074.11
32.01SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIESSEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE
32.01
48.40HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLESHARE, JOHN
48.40
98.70PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
98.70
186.67PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO
186.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
186.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
560.00
5,950.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSL-SERCO
5,950.00
1,599.53EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,599.53
1,456.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,456.00
57.90PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
5.80WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.70
556.03PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
12,188.61PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,053.25CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,797.89
4,506.38PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESST PAUL, CITY OF
4,506.38
232.96POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
232.96
90.84PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSTORAGE EQUIPMENT INC
90.84
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
885.00POLICE G & A TRAININGSTREET CRIMES
885.00
128.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
128.24
78.00ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSTROTH, NANCY
78.00
78.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
78.40
253.83ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
253.83
385,843.72SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSN
385,843.72
241.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSWANA
241.00
500.60SPECIAL PROJECTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICESWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC
500.60
1,012.50BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
1,012.50
41.28ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
41.28
54.71GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINIX INT
74.56BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
74.55WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
96.54WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
300.36
92.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
92.00
80.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, MEGAN
80.00
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
484.94ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
484.94
42.23SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
42.23
273.56GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
273.56
213.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC
213.82
750.00DAILY ADMISSION ADVERTISINGTWIN CITIES KIDS DIRECTORY
750.00
1,228.98EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
1,228.98
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
410.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
205.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
615.00
1,474.88TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
1,474.88
153.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
153.50
29.10OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
27.01SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.11
327.05GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVILLAGE CHEVROLET
327.05
164.61CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
164.61
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
4/29/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
4/30/2010 -4/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
75.45HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
75.45
343.28MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
343.28
21.42OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
26,888.64PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,943.85PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
26.54BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
53.32WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
346.83WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
23,388.65WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,735.39REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,270.92SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,719.05STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
60,394.61
31.94SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESYAHOO
31.94
27,223.01PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
27,223.01
285.23HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEZANDER, LOIS
285.23
42.40PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
42.40PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.39VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
127.19
353.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
173.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
657.23GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,183.28
Report Totals 1,571,224.04
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2010
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, February 25, 2010, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair Susan Bloyer
Vice Chair James Gainsley
Commissioner Ryan Burt
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Commissioner Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Bloyer called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
Commissioner Gainsley asked that the minutes be corrected to note that he did not adjourn
the meeting, Chair Bloyer adjourned the meeting.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of September 29, 2009 as
corrected.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts, Solmer.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case No. 10-03-VAR – The request of Jason and Aryel Londer for a variance
from the requirements of Section 36-164(f)(7) of the Ordinance Code relating
to zoning to allow a 3 foot 7 inch side setback instead of the required 7 feet 5
inches; a variance from the requirements of Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 1
foot 4 inch side setback instead of the required 5 feet; and a variance from the
requirements of Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 17 foot 5 inch rear setback
instead of the required 25 feet for property located in the R-2 Residential
District at 3541 Glenhurst Avenue South.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 25, 2010
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, reported that the applicant
submitted a request to postpone the hearing to March 25th.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to postpone the request to March 25th.
The motion carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Burt, Gainsley, Roberts, Solmer.
B. Case No. 10-04-VAR – The request of Duke Realty Corporation for a variance
from the requirements of Section 36-362(f)(19) of the Ordinance Code to
allow up to 1,000 square feet of signage instead of the maximum 500 square
feet allowed for property located in the O-Office District at 1550 Utica Avenue
South and 1600 Utica Avenue South.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. He concluded by saying staff believes all of
the seven criteria for granting a variance have been satisfied, and recommends
approval with the following conditions:
1. Each office tower is allowed a maximum of 500 square feet of signage. The
signage can be either attached to the building and/or placed between it and
the road.
2. Only directional signage shall be attached to the parking ramp.
In reference to the second staff recommendation, Commissioner Burt said he noticed
there was also a second request by the applicant that the way finding and directional
signage placed on the two existing parking structures not be included in the standard
building/ground sign calculation for the lot.
Mr. Morrison responded that by definition in the Zoning Ordinance they aren’t
included.
Commissioner Burt asked if the language in condition No. 2 would prevent
additional signage from being placed on the ramp.
Mr. Morrison said directional signage could be applied on the ramp, but not
advertising signage.
Commissioner Burt asked if a separate permit for signage would also be required.
Mr. Morrison said there is a separate zoning permit for signage which would be
required. The permit application includes drawings indicating sign size and
placement.
Chair Bloyer asked if there are any other parcels in the city that are as large and
contain more than one office building.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 25, 2010
Mr. Morrison replied other parcels that contain more than one building are covered
by Planned Unit Development agreements such as Excelsior & Grand, The West
End and Methodist Hospital. These have PUD agreements which have sign plans
attached to them. He added that Methodist also has a variance attached to the plan
to go above and beyond what the PUD allows, given the nature of the use.
Commissioner Burt asked if the standard language of Finding No. 8 (Under the
Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to initiate the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted) in the proposed resolution should be removed as it wouldn’t be
workable in this instance as tenants change.
Mr. Morrison said that Finding No. 8 should be removed.
Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Daryl Henry of Duke Realty, said Mr. Morrison did a great job
explaining the need for signage. He thanked Commissioner Burt for commenting
on Finding No. 8.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Chair Bloyer said she thought this situation would have been contemplated when the
code was written, and said she’s not convinced the board should be doing this.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt Resolution 02-10, with conditions,
and the removal of Finding No. 8, granting a variance to allow 1,000 sq. ft. of
signage instead of the maximum allowed of 500 sq. ft.
Motion carried. Voting yes: Burt, Gainsley, Roberts, Solmer
Voting no: Bloyer
5. Unfinished Business
None
6. New Business
A. Election of Chair
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion nominating Henry Solmer as Chair.
Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion nominating Ryan Burt as Vice Chair.
Motion passed 5-0.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 25, 2010
7. Communications
Mr. Morrison spoke about a variance case from the City of Minnetonka which was
recently heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court. He said the case was argued and
the results should come in a couple of months. He said he had an opportunity to
attend the hearing which regarded a non-conforming garage built in a front yard.
Mr. Morrison suggested that a summary of the case could be presented at an
upcoming board meeting.
Commissioner Gainsley said he thought a presentation of the case could be
structured in a study session with the City Attorney.
8. Adjournment
Chair Bloyer adjourned the meeting at 6:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4g
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 10, 2010
7:00 p.m. – Westwood Room City Hall
1. Call to Order
Chair Fiderlein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call and Attendance
Members Present: JC Beckstrand, Lynne Carper, Jim de Lambert, Terry Dwyer, Brian Fiderlein,
Matthew Flory, Ken Gothberg, Jim Kelly, Nathan Prosser, Pat Skinner, Erica Gutmann Strohl and
Brittney Turner.
Members Absent: Jim Brimeyer (excused) and Gary Carlson (excused).
Others Present: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk/Charter Commission Liaison.
2a. Requests for Excused Absences
It was moved by Commissioner Beckstrand, seconded by Commissioner Carper to accept excused
absences of Jim Brimeyer and Gary Carlson. The motion was unanimously approved.
2b. Introduction of New Members
Ms. Stroth introduced new Commissioner Matthew Flory appointed March 1, 2010 with a term
expiration on March 1, 2014 and filling the vacancy of Linda Jennings. Commissioner Jim
Brimeyer (who was unable to attend) was appointed February 5, 2010 with a term expiring on
January 22, 2014 and filling the vacancy of Steve Fillbrandt. She also indicated that Erica Gutmann
Strohl was reappointed with a new term expiring March 1, 2014. Introductions followed as each
commissioner introduced themselves.
2c. 2010 Term Expirations
Chair Fiderlein reviewed terms of commissioners and indicated Gary Carlson and Jim Kelly will
both have terms expiring in October 2010. Commissioners will need to inform Ms. Stroth or the
Hennepin County Chief Judge regarding reappointments. The City will help the District Court
advertise any Commission openings that become available.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Fiderlein inquired if anyone had changes to the minutes of September 9, 2009.
Commissioner Carper requested that Item 2a Requests for Excused Absences be amended to correct
the second name to read Jan Loftus.
The minutes of September 9, 2009 were accepted as amended.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Charter Commission Minutes March 10, 2010
4. Old Business
4a. Paperless Agenda
Ms. Stroth asked commissioners feedback whether there were any issues with the electronic agenda
process. Commissioner Strohl indicated that in addition to commissioners retrieving the electronic
agenda using a password (at least 8 days prior to the meeting), the agenda is also easily accessible on
the City website within a few days when it becomes available to the public. It was the consensus of
the commission that the process is easy to use and there are no issues.
4b. Revised By Laws
Commissioners reviewed current by-laws where the language “or delivered” was added to Sections 1
and 4 as approved at the September 9, 2009 meeting. Discussion took place regarding the need for
additional amending of Section 4 language in reference to postmarked notices and notification by
telephone.
It was moved by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Turner to revise Section 4 of the
Charter Commission By Laws to read as follows: “Special meetings of the Charter Commission may
be called at any time by the Chair of the commission or by five commissioners upon written notice,
mailed or delivered notice postmarked five days prior the meeting, and an attempt should be made
to notify each member by telephone.”
The motion was unanimously approved.
4c. Updated Charter Roster
Ms. Stroth stated she has received a few changes to commissioners contact information since the
agenda was distributed. She indicated to commissioners that any other changes should be submitted
within the next few weeks so a revised roster can be emailed to commissioners.
5. New Business
5a. Election of Officers
Chair Fiderlein indicated that Election of Officers needed to take place and inquired regarding
interest of current officers.
Chair Nominations: Commissioner Skinner nominated Brian Fiderlein as Chair, and Commissioner
Fiderlein accepted. There were no other nominations.
Commissioner Carper asked if the Chair position was a rotating position. Chair Fiderlein responded
the term of the Chair position has varied. He stated that prior to his appointment, the Chair served
for 8 years, and history since then suggests the chair serves 2 years at a time.
It was moved by Commissioner Skinner, seconded by Commissioner Turner to nominate
Commissioner Brian Fiderlein as Chair of the Charter Commission until the next annual meeting
of the Charter Commission. The motion was unanimously approved.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Charter Commission Minutes March 10, 2010
Vice Chair Nominations: Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner Skinner, and
Commissioner Skinner accepted. There were no other nominations.
It was moved by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Beckstrand to nominate
Commissioner Patrick Skinner as Vice Chair of the Charter Commission until the next annual
meeting of the Charter Commission. The motion was unanimously approved.
Secretary Nominations: Commissioner Gothberg nominated Commissioner Carper, and
Commissioner Carper accepted. There were no other nominations.
It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Beckstrand to nominate
Commissioner Carper as Secretary of the Charter Commission until the next annual meeting of
the Charter Commission. The motion was unanimously approved.
5b. Proposed Annual Report for District Court - Year 2009
Chair Fiderlein inquired if anyone had any changes to the Annual Report to the District Court for
the year 2009. Commissioner Carper stated his name was spelled incorrectly. Commissioner Kelly
stated the meeting date in the last paragraph should be corrected to September 9, 2009.
It was moved by Commissioner Beckstrand, seconded by Commissioner Terry to approve the 2009
Charter Commission Annual Report with corrections stated for submittal to Hennepin County
District Court. The motion was unanimously approved.
5c. 2010 Work Plan - Housekeeping amendments
Section 4.03 Primary Elections
Commissioner Dwyer asked clarification on the official newspaper of the City. Ms. Stroth
responded the Sun Sailor Newspaper is the official newspaper approved at the first meeting of the
City Council each year.
It was moved by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Strohl to approve the
recommended amendments to Section 4.03 Primary Elections to read as follows:
“The Council shall, whenever three (3) or more candidates have filed for any elective City office,
provide through ordinance or resolution for a primary election to be held for each such office. The
primary election shall be held on the first second Tuesday after the second Monday in September
August. At least two (2) weeks' notice shall be given by the Clerk of the time and places of holding
such election, and of the officers to be elected, by posting a notice thereof in at least one (1) public
place in each voting precinct where a primary election will be held and by publishing a notice thereof
at least once in the official newspaper of the City. Failure to give such notice shall not invalidate such
election.”
The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Subject: Charter Commission Minutes March 10, 2010
Section 4.06 Nomination by Petition
Discussion took place regarding the proposed language amendments. Commissioner Flory asked
why the language was changing to amount of days verses weeks as previously stated. Ms. Stroth
responded the language was consistent with the recently approved state statute language.
Commissioner Kelly requested that numbers be also consistently spelled out. Commissioner Strohl
questioned the need for the timeline language “before the general City election”. Commissioner
Kelly responded the language refers to the year of the St. Louis Park City general elections which are
currently held in the odd years.
It was moved by Commissioner Strohl, seconded by Commissioner Skinner to approve the
recommended amendments to Section 4.06 Nomination by Petition to read as follows:
“The nomination of elective officers provided for by this Charter shall be by petition. The name of
any nominee shall be printed upon the ballot whenever a petition meeting the requirements specified
in this Charter has been filed on the nominee's behalf with the City Clerk. Such petition shall be
signed by at least fifteen (15) currently registered electors qualified to vote for the office specified in
the petition. No elector shall sign petitions for more candidates than the number of places to be
filled at the election, and should the elector do so that signature shall be void as to the petition or
petitions last filed. All nomination petitions shall be filed with the City Clerk not no more than
eighty four ten (10) (84) days nor fewer less than eight (8) weeks seventy (70) days and fifty-six (56)
days before the first second Tuesday after the second Monday in September August before the
general City election.
The Clerk shall prepare the ballots with names of the candidates for an office in a manner provided
by ordinance. Each petition, when presented, must be accompanied by a twenty dollar ($20.00)
filing fee.”
The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote.
Section 6.09. Levy and Collection of Taxes.
Discussion took place regarding the proposed language amendment referencing “designated City
Treasurer” and the word “designated” being problematic. Chair Fiderlein summarized the following
issues:
• Are we absolutely comfortable with the legality of the statement?
• Where else is the term used and is it consistent with the rest of the charter? (Section 5.04 and
6.13 states “City Treasurer”)
• Without the rationale and further information, it is hard to make a decision
Ms. Stroth indicated the language was determined by the City Attorney and HR staff and that the
City Manager and City Council approve the appointment of the City Treasurer.
Commissioner Carper stated it was important for the City to be in compliance with the City Charter
and the need to make the amendment to replace Finance Director references, to state “designated
City Treasurer” as requested by the City staff in order to continue to do proper business. He
indicated it may cause issues with the City if not approved at this time.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 5
Subject: Charter Commission Minutes March 10, 2010
Commissioners discussed the options to revisit this language change with further explanation and
discussion at a future meeting and a possible committee to review the complete charter for all
references.
It was moved by Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Carper to approve the
recommended amendments to Section 6.09 Levy and Collection of Taxes to read as follows:
“Each year the Council shall levy the taxes necessary to meet the requirements of the budget for the
ensuing fiscal year in the manner prescribed by State law. The Director of Finance designated City
Treasurer shall transmit a statement of the taxes levied to the County Auditor annually. Such taxes
shall be collected and their payment shall be enforced at the time and in the same manner as State
and County taxes. No tax shall be invalid because of any informality in the manner of levying the
same, nor because the amount levied exceeds the amount required to be raised for the purpose for
which it was levied. Any surplus shall go into a suspense fund, and shall be used to reduce the levy
for the ensuing year.”
The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote.
It was moved by Commissioner Carper, seconded by Commissioner Kelly to direct City staff to
determine terminology regarding director of finance, designated City treasurer or City treasurer, and
present background information at the next scheduled Charter Commission meeting. The motion
was unanimously approved.
Section 6.10. Tax Settlement with County.
It was moved by Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Turner to approve the
recommended amendments to Section 6.10 Tax Settlement with County to read as follows:
“The Director of Finance designated City Treasurer shall ensure that all monies in the County
Treasury belonging to the City are promptly turned over to the City according to law.”
The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote.
6. Future Meetings
Chair Fiderlein set the next meeting for Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 7 p.m.
7. Communications
There were no communication items.
8. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Skinner, seconded by Commissioner Gothberg to adjourn the meeting at
8:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by:
Nancy Stroth, Liaison and Lynne Carper, Secretary
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 7, 2010--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member), Claudia Johnson-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Kathy Larsen, Meg McMonigal
1. GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator for the city gave a summary of the Green Step
demonstration project the city is involved in with the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and
Urban Land Institute (ULI). ULI chose five cities to be involved in the project. St. Louis
Park has chosen three areas of focus, which are:
1. Green building policy
2. Recycling in multiple family housing
3. Active living policy
Over the next few months the staff will be working on these areas and bringing information
and ideas forward to address the “best practices” for these areas.
Kathy also noted that a new opportunity has arisen through this program and it is to define a
carbon footprint for the entire city. The city will be working with ULI to accomplish this
definition over the next few months.
2. Green Building Policy
In February, the City Council adopted a “Green Building” policy. Kathy Larsen
summarized the policy components, which would apply to building projects that receive
financial assistance to the city, and to city projects. The policy includes requirements for
energy efficiency and requires energy modeling and commissioning.
This policy “strikes a pragmatic balance between encouragement and requirement of
sustainable building practices and…remains environmentally pro-active and economically
practical.”
Respectfully submitted,
Meg McMonigal
Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 7, 2010--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member), Claudia
Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice Chair Dennis Morris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of March 17, 2010: regular minutes and study session minutes
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the regular and study
session minutes of March 17, 2010. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
Commissioner Carper arrived at 6:04 p.m.
Chair Person arrived at 6:10 p.m.
3. Hearings
A. Galaxy Drive-In Conditional Use Permit, Plat, and Variance
Location: 3712 Quebec Ave. S. and 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S.
Applicant: JS Holdings, LLC
Case No.: 10-06-CUP, 10-07-S, 10-14-VAR
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant had
conducted a fairly significant process to date. The applicant’s requests for Comprehensive
Plan and rezoning amendments were approved in November, 2009. The current requests
will bring the use into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
He stated that neighborhood meetings have been held recently regarding buffer and
screening issues.
Mr. Fulton spoke about parking and total seating allowed.
Mr. Fulton stated that the drainage and utility easements will be revised and provided to City
Council for review of the final plat.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Mr. Fulton discussed the two variance requests.
Commissioner Carper asked for more details regarding the disconnect in sidewalk.
Mr. Fulton responded there would be a sidewalk disconnect on Rhode Island, a segment of sidewalk
that wouldn’t go anywhere. There are no sidewalks on either the east or west side of Rhode Island.
There are no plans in the Comprehensive Plan for sidewalk there. He added he has not heard from
any of the neighbors that there is a demand for sidewalk in that location.
Commissioner Kramer asked about sidewalk at the Frontage Road.
Mr. Fulton discussed the property line at the north side adjacent to the Frontage Road. Staff’s
review generally indicated patrons parking at the parking lot would probably walk through the
parking lot and would not utilize a sidewalk.
Commissioner Kramer remarked there is a lot of discussion about on-street parking. He asked
where the on-street parking would occur and how those customers would get to the restaurant.
Mr. Fulton responded that most the customers who parked on-street would probably walk into the
parking lot and to the drive-in.
Commissioner Carper asked if there is active parking on the Frontage Road. He said he is
concerned about bicyclists. He said if there is an increase in traffic the sidewalk may be more
appropriate for bikers.
Mr. Fulton explained there is no parking immediately to the west and immediately to the east of this
location. Parking is permitted on the Frontage Road only between Rhode Island and Quebec.
Commissioner Kramer stated that he lives in the area and sees more traffic in the neighborhood.
Adding more cars to a parking lot will invite more cars to the area. He said he doubts customers
will walk backwards to go through the lot after parking on the Frontage Rd. He said he’s concerned
that people have a place to walk without having to walk in the street, especially if people from the
neighborhood want to walk there. He said he views it as a pedestrian aggregating walkway.
Commissioner Kramer continued by saying that he views sidewalks as extremely important because
of what he has observed over the last year with traffic at that location. He stated he does not agree
with the staff recommendation on the topic of sidewalks.
Chair Person asked if the house on Rhode Island Ave. is proposed to be moved or demolished.
Steve Schussler, applicant, said Habitat for Humanity or a similar organization will be approached
about either moving the house or recycling building materials and hardware. Moving the house
would probably be too expensive. He may also offer the house to the Fire Department or the Police
Department.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Mr. Schussler spoke about the sidewalk issue. He said the property in question is owned by
MnDOT. More traffic on the street was being addressed by having the employees park in the
parking lot, freeing up street space.
Commissioner Carper asked if it was even possible to build a sidewalk on MnDOT property.
Mr. Fulton responded there are questions about future changes to Highway 7 and changes to the
roadway adjacent to this site. Major changes are not proposed to Hwy. 7 itself but there is a grade
change proposed at Louisiana and Hwy. 7 that may go forward in the next 5-10 years. MnDOT
may be hesitant about allowing a sidewalk at this location.
Commissioner Carper asked if the request was approved with the condition that sidewalk must be
provided, how would that be resolved if MnDOT prohibited sidewalk?
Mr. Fulton responded if sidewalk were required as part of the proposal and MnDOT prohibited its
construction, that would be a very clear reason for a subdivision variance and that would probably
come back as a minor amendment.
Commissioner Kramer asked why landscaping is allowed, but a sidewalk inside the curb line would
not be allowed?
Mr. Fulton said landscaping or a fence can be moved. They are temporary in nature and easily
replaced. Sidewalk is defined as a more permanent improvement.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, noted that a formal request has not been made
to MnDOT for sidewalk. The request could be made prior to City Council.
Commissioner Morris suggested that the variance could be conditioned on a request that the City or
applicant obtain MnDOT’s permission to install a sidewalk. If MnDOT denies the request, the
variance is granted. If they approve, then there is no reason not to put the sidewalk in.
Commissioner Kramer remarked that he just wanted a good faith effort put in regarding sidewalk.
Commissioner Morris said in his experience MnDOT allows many things to be done on frontage
roads as long as the local authority does the permitting and monitoring.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Jay Coleman, 3719 Quebec, said his only concern regards a sidewalk on the north side. With the
parking lot coming in he doesn’t see a lot of use for sidewalk. Pedestrians walking patterns so far
tell him that very few would use that sidewalk. With the setbacks there aren’t that many cars out
there.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Michael Newkirk, 3740 Pennsylvania said his issue regards traffic on the Frontage Rd. The drive-in
is at the crest of a hill. He’s baffled as to why parking is even allowed on the Frontage Rd. On April
1st, the opening, there were as many cars parked between Rhode Island and Quebec as possible.
Several of them were parked illegally. As he tried to drive through there was also a semi double
parked on the north side of the Frontage Rd., making deliveries which left about 10 feet of traffic
space, right at the crest of the hill. He spoke about going westbound up the hill last summer with
many cars parked there. Someone left their car with three small kids and one of the children came
within 6 feet of being underneath his front tires. Mr. Newkirk said it’s a huge problem and it seems
to have an easy solution. The parking restrictions as shown at the corners only leave room for 2-4
cars. Right now they are used by the employees. That problem will probably go away. He mentioned
another incident regarding elderly pedestrians walking up the Frontage Road. They probably would
have used a sidewalk. If the parking is eliminated a sidewalk isn’t needed.
Gay Neitzel, 3719 Quebec Ave. S., said there are only a couple of spots left to park on the Frontage
Road. The sidewalk would not be needed if parking was not allowed on the Frontage Road. People
are parking from Quebec to Pennsylvania. The sidewalk wouldn’t do much. The new parking lot
eliminates the need for sidewalk with a lot less problems.
Virgil Probst, 3735 Sumter, said he’s concerned about safety and parking on the service road. The
road is almost too narrow for two cars to pass. Lots of traffic is now coming off of Wooddale. It’s
an accident waiting to happen. There are no parking signs from Texas to Rhode Island.
Joyce Saabye, 3719 Rhode Island, lives right next to the proposed parking lot. She would like the 8
ft. fence and would like to get a variance to put a fence between her property and the proposed
fence.
Ms. McMonigal said a separate request will need to be made for the fence request. She said staff
can advise Ms. Saabye on that application.
Dwight Lincoln, 3736 Quebec Ave. S. said he is concerned about children’s safety. To eliminate
frequent turnarounds in residential driveways that are occurring, he proposed that Quebec become a
one way street beginning at 3600 Quebec, except for buses and garbage trucks with established
routes.
Steve Schussler, applicant, stated he agrees with all of his neighbors remarks. He doesn’t think
parking should be allowed on the Frontage Rd. He said it’s the only section of the entire roadway
where there are cars. He said the drive-in isn’t just about money. It’s about art, about keeping a
drive-in in the community, and about being a good neighbor. The sidewalk would be a sidewalk to
nowhere. Mr. Schussler said eliminating parking on the Frontage Rd. is the most important thing.
Commissioner Carper spoke about the number of seats permitted at the restaurant and parking. He
asked the applicant if it would be acceptable to him to lose restaurant seats if Frontage Road parking
was eliminated.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Mr. Schussler said it was acceptable and he would support that completely.
Mr. Fulton said parking on the Frontage Road has been looked at by the city in great detail. The
City takes the safety issue very seriously. He stated that his best guess is that the resolution approved
for this area years ago by the City Council allowed parking because they wanted to provide parking
for the drive-in in that location. The City Engineer reviewed this carefully and determined the street
is sufficiently wide to allow parking on the south side of the street and still have two lanes of travel.
The City Engineer wasn’t concerned about this as a safety issue. The proposal came before both the
Police and Fire Dept. Staff didn’t hear concerns from them about this issue. Mr. Fulton said the
Planning Commission could certainly make an extra recommendation saying that it recommends to
the City Council that parking be prohibited on the south side of the Frontage Rd. The City
Engineer looked at this and determined that for visibility sake it was most appropriate to prohibit
parking on the east and west side of the frontage road for that distance 30 ft. to the intersection. He
added that a concern from the neighborhood meetings related to traffic and parking on Quebec and
Rhode Island if Frontage Rd. parking was eliminated.
Commissioner Carper asked if the correct approach would be for the neighborhood and applicant to
put together a petition to remove the parking.
Mr. Fulton said yes and such an approach is typically handled by the City Engineer, not the
Planning Department.
Chair Person asked if parking restrictions along the Frontage Road were under MnDOT’s
jurisdiction.
Ms. McMonigal stated that MnDOT usually cedes some local control in these areas regarding
parking.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Robertson stated he had no issues with the conditional use permit or plat. He said he
did have a problem with both variances, commenting that variances are pretty straightforward and
always hinged on hardship. He said he did not see any hardships in this case. Commissioner
Robertson said he doesn’t see any reason to eliminate sidewalk unless MnDOT won’t allow it. He
sees a value to the sidewalk, commenting that it is part of the ordinance and what is desired on every
subdivision. He stated there is no good reason to grant a variance from the sidewalk in this case.
Commissioner Robertson went on to say as far as the setback for parking, there is no hardship at all.
He said any perceived hardship is purely the making of how lines were drawn. The site was recently
rezoned. It was purchased for this reason. If more space was needed, two lots should have been
purchased. He said it doesn’t make sense to buy a lot, rezone, and then ask for a variance to use as
you want. Commissioner Robertson said he was opposed to both variances, and was open to the
other requests.
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that we are where we are today because this drive-in
was built here to begin with. Wagner’s was there for years but did not have the impact on that
neighborhood that this particular drive-in has. She said it’s a beautiful drive-in and it’s very creative,
but in her opinion it should not have ever been built on this property. She called it a 500 lb. weight
on a paper table. She said it will be a topic for years to come. She spoke about the impact on the
neighborhood in terms of safety, parking, driving, and noise. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said
she would not support the current requests, just as she didn’t support the proposal to begin with.
She added that she hopes City staff and the City Council are paying attention that we’ve got to start
looking at the impacts these types of redevelopments have on single family neighborhoods.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Fulton if the property will still be addressed as 3712 Quebec after
the replat is complete.
Mr. Fulton replied that hasn’t been discussed, but he expected it probably would be addressed as
3712 Quebec.
Commissioner Morris asked why Hwy. 7 Frontage Rd. is considered a front yard instead of a side
yard, technically.
Mr. Fulton spoke about the way yards are determined, looking at the narrower of two sides when
there is a corner lot. He pointed out the narrower of the two sides for the existing house is
technically the front yard. The drive-in is oriented towards Hwy. 7, constructed here because of
Hwy. 7, and so very clearly has the front yard facing Hwy. 7. The other two yards are then
considered side yards abutting the street.
Commissioner Morris said he understood the logic. He just wanted to clarify addressing and yards.
He said he had no qualms about parking being in the front yard. He said he agrees with
Commissioner Robertson about the sidewalk requirement. He suggested sometime this year the
Commission needs to look at the sidewalk requirements in the ordinance. The intent isn’t to make
everyone have sidewalk in front of their house, it’s to slowly bring in sidewalks to neighborhoods like
this where they don’t exist at all. He said if we’re doing too many variances and it’s not logical, let’s
look at the ordinance. He stated that he supports the front yard parking variance, but not the
sidewalk variance.
Commissioner Carper said he supported granting a variance for the parking lot setback, remarking
that the applicant has made some rear lot adjustments in favor of the resident that he did not have to
do. He said he is sympathetic to the applicant in terms of the cost of the sidewalk, but he has always
favored establishment of sidewalks in subdivision requests over the past several years, except once
when there was a problem with terrain. He said the other requests related to the drive-in seem to be
in order.
Commissioner Kramer discussed hardship. He doesn’t see what the hardship is that Mr. Schussler
might not have known about when he purchased the restaurant. It was a limited site size then, and
the applicant probably could have anticipated this. He said he does see a requirement for sidewalk
because people will be walking to and from the restaurant. Commissioner Kramer said he would also
like to recommend no parking on the Frontage Rd. He commented that he doesn’t want to make it
City Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2010
all no parking today so that only in a year from now the Council can make it parkable. He said he is
concerned that if ownership changes people may forget all about the parking issue.
Chair Person stated he agreed with all of the staff recommendations but agrees strongly with
Commissioner Kramer that there shouldn’t be parking on the Frontage Rd. He added that is
predominantly what was heard from several neighbors who spoke at the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal discussed the parking lot variance. Usually 5 ft. of parking lot is required to be set
back from the property line. Typically there is about 10 ft. of right-of-way. In this case there is 18
ft. of right-of-way. The ordinance does allow a variance if there is something related to the land
that is unusual. There is an extra wide right-of-way and blvd. area between the Frontage Rd. curb
and the proposed parking lot. She explained there is about the same amount of space available with
the normal required setback. That is the reasoning for staff’s support of the zoning variance.
Commissioner Robertson responded he understood the logic, but said setbacks are from property
lines. He stated that all we can operate on is setbacks from a property line and the condition on the
adjacent property doesn’t really affect that. He said he still does not see a hardship.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The
motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Johnston-Madison opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to deny the request for subdivision variance from the plat
requirement that a sidewalk be constructed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Person opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to deny the variance to the parking lot setback.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2 (Carper and
Morris opposed).
Commissioner Morris made a motion of recommendation that the City Council work with
neighbors and the property owner to change the parking restrictions on the Frontage Road.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business: None
5. Communications: None
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
Galaxy Drive-In – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-In
Restaurant located at 3712 Quebec and 3715 Rhode Island Avenues South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Galaxy Drive
Inn Addition.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Parking Restrictions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the proposed plan for the Galaxy Drive-In satisfy the requirements for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary and Final Plat with a
subdivision variance for the Galaxy Drive-In restaurant. The requests are associated with a proposed
new parking lot for the drive-in restaurant. At the time of Planning Commission review, the
applicant’s request included a variance to parking lot setbacks. The applicant has since adjusted the
site plan to eliminate the need for the variance and has withdrawn the zoning setback variance
application.
The parking lot is proposed immediately west of the existing restaurant, where a single family home
would be removed; the lot would be combined with the restaurant lot. The submittal includes new
landscaping to improve the screening between the restaurant and adjacent properties.
The City Engineer has reviewed on-street parking regulations around the site. New parking
restrictions at the intersections around the drive-in are proposed that would improve traffic safety in
the area if implemented. The resolution regarding the proposed parking restrictions is included for
review concurrently with the application.
Proposal Background:
The parcel at 3712 Quebec Avenue South has had a drive-in style restaurant on it since 1951. It was
renamed “Galaxy,” renovated, and brought into greater compliance with the building code in 2008
with the addition of restrooms, parking improvements and a complete overhaul of the kitchen area.
Although the size of the use remained the same, the improvements resulted in a substantial increase
in business activity at the site.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
The applicant is proposing a new parking lot to accommodate the increased demand for parking on
the site. To move forward with the proposal, the applicant was required to apply for amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to modify the properties’ designations from Single
Family Residential to Commercial. The amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on October 21, 2009 and approved by the City Council on November 16th, 2009. Both the existing
drive-in and the lot proposed for parking are now zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
A drive-in restaurant is allowed in the C-1 zoning district with approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. Because the site for the proposed parking is on a separate parcel from the drive-in, a
Preliminary and Final Plat to combine the two properties is also required. These approvals would
bring the use into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Process
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to review the proposal on January 26, 2010. Residents
reviewed the plans and made suggestions about how the site should be landscaped and changed to
reflect neighborhood issues. The applicant held a follow-up meeting the next week with the
neighbors immediately adjacent to the proposed parking lot. The result of the meetings included
raising the proposed fence from six feet to eight feet, adding space to the landscaped buffer area, and
increased landscaping to the west of the parking lot.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposal on April 7, 2010. The
primary issues raised by residents during the public hearing were parking on the frontage road and
the construction of a sidewalk. The Planning Commission adopted the following motions:
• Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Drive-In and
Preliminary/Final Plat (5-1)
• Motion to recommend denial of the Subdivision Variance for the Sidewalk (5-1)
• Motion to recommend denial of the Variance to the front yard setback for the parking lot
(4-2)
• Motion to request that the City Council work with the neighbors to eliminate all parking on
the frontage road (6-0)
The minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for review. As noted above, the
applicant has revised the site plan since the Planning Commission meeting to eliminate the need for
a zoning setback variance for the parking lot. The zoning setback variance request has been
withdrawn.
Conditional Use Permit Review:
The primary issues under review as part of the Galaxy Drive-In’s CUP application are off-street
parking, the number of available seats at the restaurant, landscaping and stormwater management.
Zoning Analysis
The CUP proposal addresses the fact that the use will include a drive-in area for patrons arriving at
the site in a vehicle and choosing to eat in their vehicles. However, the use is also a restaurant,
which is permitted with conditions in the C-1 Zoning District. The Galaxy Drive-in needs to meet
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
the requirements both for a restaurant and a drive-in. The conditions for a restaurant state that
there must be a non-residential street as the primary access point, and that the restaurant building
must be a minimum of 25 feet from any residential parcel. Both of these requirements are met. The
zoning analysis is as follows:
Parking & Total Seating Allowed
The Galaxy Drive-In is predominately an outdoor-seating based restaurant. For this reason it is
challenging to develop a parking regulation; in a typical sit-down restaurant, a calculation of one
space per 60 square feet of gross floor area is used. In this case, because the property is a drive-in
location, the gross square footage does not accurately represent the total number of patrons at the
site at a given time. Instead, the number of seats available at the restaurant will drive the need for
parking spaces. Based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s “Parking Generation”
manual, peak parking demand for this type of use is 0.33 vehicles per seat – or one parking space per
three seats.
Regulation Zoning Requirement Proposed Met?
Height 35 feet maximum 18 feet Yes
Building Materials Minimum 60%
Class I materials > 60% Glass Yes
Setbacks – Front (N) / Rear (S) 5’ 20’ 26’ 30’
Setbacks – Side (W) / Side (E) 15’ 15’ 41’ 31’
Yes
Maximum # of seats allowed Based on available
parking
49 spaces
147 seats Yes
Off-Street Parking NA; outdoor seating 36 spaces Yes
On-Street Parking available via
Zoning Ordinance
Spaces immediately
adjacent to parcel 13 spaces Yes
Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 off-
street parking spaces 4 spaces Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.2 0.05 Yes
Landscaping 14 trees
84 shrubs
31 trees
42 shrubs
Alternative measures
Yes
Mechanical Equipment Full screening Provided – rooftop &
internal Yes
Refuse Handling Full screening
required
External trash rooms
screened Yes
Stormwater Required city and
watershed standards BMPs & infiltration Yes
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
There are a total of 15 existing drive-up parking spaces on the site. The proposed parking expansion
would allow for the construction of 21 off-street parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance allows for
the use of on-street parking if available directly adjacent to the site. The applicant can count some
on-street parking toward available seating, but not that parking within 30 feet of the intersection.
On-street parking is available only for areas immediately adjacent to the parcel itself. The restaurant
cannot use parking across the street or several blocks away toward its count. Up to 13 available on-
street parking spaces may be counted, bringing the total for the site to 34 spaces.
At a ratio of three seats per parking space, a maximum of 102 seats are permitted. The drive-up
spaces serve customers in their vehicles, and so are not being counted toward the total for purposes
of calculating the total number seats permitted. Because there is no space on-site to add additional
parking, a requirement has been included in the conditions of approval that the total seating on-site
be limited to 102 seats. There are approximately this many seats at the restaurant at the present
time.
It may be necessary to review and possibly modify the maximum number of seats permitted if there
are changes to parking availability in the future. A condition has been included in the resolution to
reflect that the available parking may change in the future; the condition sets the number of seats at
a ratio of 3 seats per parking space. If in the future parking is restricted along the Frontage Road,
there would be eight fewer spaces available to the restaurant. In this case the total available parking
would be reduced to 26 spaces and the maximum number of seats would be 78.
Setbacks
The existing building is located in the center of the parcel. Setback requirements for a restaurant in
the C-1 District are met as follows:
The restaurant and canopy meet the setback requirements. The site plan has also been modified to
bring the parking lot into compliance with the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, which calls
for a minimum setback of five feet between the edge of a parking lot and any property line adjacent
to a right-of-way.
Landscaping, Tree Replacement & Screening
The applicant has focused the greatest level of attention on screening the proposed parking lot from
the single family home immediately to the south. An eight (8) foot fence is proposed in that
location, which is the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance where commercial and
residential properties meet. The fence will provide complete opacity to the south. Trees and shrubs
are proposed for both sides of the fence.
Yard Type Setback Requirement Setback Proposed
Front yard (Frontage Road) 5’ 20’
Side yard (Quebec Ave. S.) 15’ 35’
Side yard (Rhode Island Ave. S.) 15’ > 50’
Rear yard 20’ 40’
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
As noted in the table, the applicant does not fully meet the landscaping requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for the total number of trees and shrubs. While the number of proposed trees exceeds
that required, the number of shrubs falls short by 42 shrubs. As permitted by Section 36-364 (g) of
the Zoning Ordinance, alternative landscaping methods are proposed to accommodate this shortfall.
The site plan’s character is consistent with the concept for a drive-in restaurant in the area, and site
design includes attention to characteristics that improve the area – including efforts to create interest
by providing a variety of colors and textures within the site.
The plan has been revised since the Planning Commission meeting to incorporate screening between
the parking lot and adjacent streets. The purpose of screening this location is to prevent vehicle
headlights in the parking lot from interfering with traffic safety for vehicles traveling on adjacent
roadways. The proposed screening consists of a low fence designed to match the existing
landscaping on the site.
To construct the parking lot, the trees on the single family home site would be removed, resulting in
the loss of 114 caliper inches of significant trees. The tree replacement formula in the Zoning
Ordinance requires that 137 caliper inches of new trees be installed on the site. The 31 proposed
trees do not meet this requirement, providing only 32 new caliper inches on the site. The rules of
the Zoning Ordinance allow the applicant to pay the tree replacement fee of $115.00 per caliper
inch. The total tree replacement fee of $12,075.00, for the replacement of 105 caliper inches, is
reflected in the Resolution.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater management for the site was reviewed by the City Engineer. It was determined that the
site generally meets the City’s stormwater requirements for rate control as the change in impervious
area on the site was sufficiently small to be considered negligible. The site has been designed to
allow for some ponding within the new parking lot during heavy rain. In a 100-year storm event,
approximately six inches of water would pool within the parking lot, where it would drain at a
slower-than-typical rate toward the stormwater system.
Permits from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are required prior to construction.
Noise & Hours of Operation
The public hours of operation for the Galaxy Drive-In are from 11:00 am to 9:00 pm Sunday to
Thursday, and 11:00 am to 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday. The proposed hours are consistent
with the requirements for the C-1 Zoning District. Accordingly, a condition has been included in
the CUP to ensure that hours are not extended later than 10:00 pm or earlier than 8:00.
Noise issues are governed by City regulations and enforced by the City’s Inspections and Police
Departments. Noise is an important consideration as part of a drive-in CUP. A condition has been
included regulating outside loudspeakers and on-going music on the site.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Engineering Comments & On-Street Parking Modifications
The City Engineer has reviewed the traffic conditions in the area surrounding the applicant’s
property. On-street parking is permitted on the Frontage Road and the adjacent residential streets.
During peak operating times, there has been a significant amount of parking within the
neighborhood.
To improve safety conditions for drivers and pedestrians in the area, the City Engineer has proposed
the creation of a no-parking zone for a distance of 30 feet from any intersection. The parking
restrictions affect the intersections of Quebec and Rhode Island Avenues with the Frontage Road. A
graphic is attached for review depicting the areas where parking would be prohibited under the
proposed Resolution.
During the Planning Commissions public hearing, several residents requested that on-street parking
be fully prohibited on the Frontage Road adjacent to the drive-in. The Planning Commission also
passed a motion requesting that “the City Council work with the neighbors to eliminate all parking
on the Frontage Road.”
The attached resolution on parking restrictions reflects the initial recommendation to the Planning
Commission, not the Planning Commission motion. Creating the 30-foot parking restriction will
alter the existing conditions and improve the safety of the intersections. Should it be approved, the
proposed solution could then be evaluated for a period of several months. If parking concerns
continue, the situation should be reevaluated and a new solution may include an expansion of the
parking restrictions to the entire the Frontage Road. An advantage to on-street parking is that it has
some traffic calming impacts.
In addition to addressing parking issues, the City Engineer also reviewed the existing conditions
adjacent to the site in the public right-of-way. The right-of-way adjacent to the Frontage Road is
owned and regulated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. It was noted during a site
survey that there may be benches and other items currently located within the right-of-way. The
City Engineer has requested that a condition be added to the CUP to prohibit the placement of
permanent or semi-permanent items in the right-of-way, to ensure that the right-of-way is
maintained in a clear fashion to allow for vehicle safety, snow storage, and roadway maintenance.
Non-permanent items may be permitted, although a permit will be required from the Public Works
Department to allow temporary private use of the right-of-way.
Preliminary and Final Plat:
The applicant has included an application to re-plat the two lots into one new lot. The combined
lot will be 0.57 acres in size and have frontage along Rhode Island Ave. S., the south Highway 7
Frontage Road, and Quebec Ave. S. The lots were previously platted in the Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
The application was reviewed in the context of the Comprehensive Plan and was found to comply.
The land use designation for the two sites was recently amended from Low Density Residential to
Commercial. The new lot will meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements for a lot designated for
commercial activity for the following reasons:
• It has access from a roadway that will not generate significant traffic through the adjacent
neighborhood.
• It is of a sufficient size and dimension to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
• The larger size improves the viability of a unique commercial site with neighborhood access.
• It is adequately served by public and private utilities.
Drainage and Utility Easements
Drainage and utility easements have been provided as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Subdivision Variance Request
The applicant is requesting a Subdivision Variance from the plat requirement that a sidewalk be
constructed on all sides of a property adjacent to existing right-of-way. There is an existing sidewalk
along Quebec Ave. S., but no sidewalk along the Frontage Road or Rhode Island Ave. S. The
existing sidewalk on Quebec Ave. S. provides an indirect link for the neighborhood to the Southwest
LRT Trail via an access trail at South Oak Pond.
Subdivision Variances are subject to a lesser threshold for approval than a typical Zoning Variance.
In the case of the requested sidewalk variance, the City Council must find that there are
circumstances or conditions that would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land. In
regard to the request, the following issues are applicable:
• No sidewalks are proposed in the Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 7 Frontage Road or
Rhode Island Ave. S.; the request is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Construction of a sidewalk in this location would connect to the sidewalk on Quebec Ave.
S., but there is not existing sidewalk to the south along Rhode Island Ave. S., so it would add
a segment of disconnected sidewalk to the City’s network.
• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare
of the patrons of the drive-in or of the neighborhood.
• The sidewalk would be partially located on right-of-way governed by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Subdivision Variance request. The Planning
Commission believes a sidewalk should be constructed along all property lines.
Park and Trail Dedication
There are no new lots being created as a result of the proposed Plat; rather, two lots are simply being
combined into a single lot. Park Dedication and Trail Dedication fees are not applicable in this
situation, since new lots are not being created.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Galaxy Drive-In services as a neighborhood gathering place; through an expansion of its parking
area, it will continue to serve as a key contact area where people in the neighborhood and
community can meet and interact.
Attachments: Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Resolution – Preliminary and Final Plat
Resolution – No Parking Restrictions
Draft Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2010
Location Map
Parking Restrictions Map
Site Plan and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTIONS 36-193(d)(6) AND 36-365 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A DRIVE-
IN RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3712 QUEBEC AVENUE
SOUTH AND 3715 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. JS Holdings, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Sections 36-193(d)(6) and 36-365 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
allowing a drive-in restaurant within a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District located at 3712
Quebec Avenue and 3715 Rhode Island Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 5, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated and Lots 6 to 9,
including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block 319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and
Lots 42 to 45, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block
319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-06-CUP) and the effect of the proposed drive-in restaurant 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 drive-in restaurant 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 drive-in restaurant is
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 10-06-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit a drive-in restaurant at the location described is granted
based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
2. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
b. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be
submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and
erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The applicant shall pay the tree replacement fee of $12,075.00, for the
replacement of 105 caliper inches of trees on the site.
b. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and
City policies.
c. To ensure construction of the landscaping, other required public
improvements, and the cleaning of public streets during construction, a
financial guarantee shall be provided in the amount of 125% of the cost of the
landscaping materials.
d. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include means to
ensure it is fully screened from off-site view.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighborhood properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
f. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a
public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the
determination by the Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures
have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
g. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
5. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the following
shall be completed:
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors.
d. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all
such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. To protect the health,
safety and welfare of the community, the painting of mechanical equipment shall
not be considered screening.
6. The number of customer seats allowed for the site shall be set at a ratio of three (3) seats
per each parking space. Should on-street parking restrictions around the site be modified
in the future, the number of permitted customer seats should be adjusted accordingly.
7. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48
hours.
8. The approved site plans depict a ‘future addition’ to the structure. Unless there are
impacts to parking, site design, and the functionality of the drive-in, a Minor
Amendment shall be required to allow for the construction of any interior seating areas
for the drive-in restaurant.
9. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
10. To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, the installation of any on-site traffic calming
measures not indicated on the official exhibits, including speed bumps, shall require a
major amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
11. Hours of operation at the drive-in restaurant shall be limited to the hours between 8:00
AM and 10:00 PM.
12. Rights-of-way adjacent to the property shall be maintained clear from permanent
structures. A City right-of-way permit shall be required for any temporary use of the
right-of-way.
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.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit is required, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
GALAXY DRIVE INN ADDITION
WITH VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
FOR SIDEWALK
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. JS Holdings, LLC, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as
Galaxy Drive Inn Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of
said subdivision with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for sidewalk (Section 26-153) in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings
have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lot 5, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated and Lots 6 to 9,
including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block 319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and
Lots 42 to 45, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block
319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
4. On April 7, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended denial of the request for
variance from the subdivision ordinance for sidewalk on a vote of 5-1.
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. Such circumstances arise due to existing conditions on the site.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
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. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or injurious to any surrounding properties.
7. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship.
The requested variance will remove the requirement for sidewalk, which will not connect to other
portions of the city-wide sidewalk network called for the in Comprehensive Plan.
8. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate future sidewalk connections in this location, nor is it
anticipated that sidewalk will be constructed on Rhode Island Avenue South or the south Frontage
Road of Highway 7 in the future.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Galaxy Drive Inn Addition is
hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all
ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State
of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the
City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. A variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance for the
construction of a sidewalk along the south Frontage Road of Highway 7 or
Rhode Island Avenue South, as required by City Code, Section 26-153.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval
on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in
Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing
of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties
above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further
formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON RHODE ISLAND AVENUE SOUTH, QUEBEC AVENUE SOUTH,
AND THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 7
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at these locations.
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. “No Parking” on the west side of Rhode Island Avenue South from the intersection with
the South Frontage Road of State Highway Number 7 to a point 30 feet to the south.
2. “No Parking” on the west side of Quebec Avenue South from the intersection with the
South Frontage Road of State Highway Number 7 to a point 30 feet to the south.
3. “No Parking” on the south side of the South Frontage Road of State Highway Number 7
from the intersection with Quebec Avenue South to a point 30 feet to the west.
4. “No Parking” on the south side of the South Frontage Road of State Highway Number 7
from the intersection with Rhode Island Avenue South to a point 30 feet to the east.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 3, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Excerpts – Planning Commission Minutes
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
April 7, 2010--6:00 p.m.
3. Hearings
A. Galaxy Drive-In Conditional Use Permit, Plat, and Variance
Location: 3712 Quebec Ave. S. and 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S.
Applicant: JS Holdings, LLC
Case No.: 10-06-CUP, 10-07-S, 10-14-VAR
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant had conducted a
fairly significant process to date. The applicant’s requests for Comprehensive Plan and rezoning
amendments were approved in November, 2009. The current requests will bring the use into
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that neighborhood meetings have been held
recently regarding buffer and screening issues.
Mr. Fulton spoke about parking and total seating allowed.
Mr. Fulton stated that the drainage and utility easements will be revised and provided to City
Council for review of the final plat.
Mr. Fulton discussed the two variance requests.
Commissioner Carper asked for more details regarding the disconnect in sidewalk.
Mr. Fulton responded there would be a sidewalk disconnect on Rhode Island, a segment of sidewalk
that wouldn’t go anywhere. There are no sidewalks on either the east or west side of Rhode Island.
There are no plans in the Comprehensive Plan for sidewalk there. He added he has not heard from
any of the neighbors that there is a demand for sidewalk in that location.
Commissioner Kramer asked about sidewalk at the Frontage Road.
Mr. Fulton discussed the property line at the north side adjacent to the Frontage Road. Staff’s review
generally indicated patrons parking at the parking lot would probably walk through the parking lot
and would not utilize a sidewalk.
Commissioner Kramer remarked there is a lot of discussion about on-street parking. He asked where
the on-street parking would occur and how those customers would get to the restaurant.
Mr. Fulton responded that most the customers who parked on-street would probably walk into the
parking lot and to the drive-in.
Commissioner Carper asked if there is active parking on the Frontage Road. He said he is concerned
about bicyclists. He said if there is an increase in traffic the sidewalk may be more appropriate for
bikers.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Mr. Fulton explained there is no parking immediately to the west and immediately to the east of this
location. Parking is permitted on the Frontage Road only between Rhode Island and Quebec.
Commissioner Kramer stated that he lives in the area and sees more traffic in the neighborhood.
Adding more cars to a parking lot will invite more cars to the area. He said he doubts customers
will walk backwards to go through the lot after parking on the Frontage Rd. He said he’s concerned
that people have a place to walk without having to walk in the street, especially if people from the
neighborhood want to walk there. He said he views it as a pedestrian aggregating walkway.
Commissioner Kramer continued by saying that he views sidewalks as extremely important because
of what he has observed over the last year with traffic at that location. He stated he does not agree
with the staff recommendation on the topic of sidewalks.
Chair Person asked if the house on Rhode Island Ave. is proposed to be moved or demolished.
Steve Schussler, applicant, said Habitat for Humanity or a similar organization will be approached
about either moving the house or recycling building materials and hardware. Moving the house
would probably be too expensive. He may also offer the house to the Fire Department or the Police
Department.
Mr. Schussler spoke about the sidewalk issue. He said the property in question is owned by
MnDOT. More traffic on the street was being addressed by having the employees park in the
parking lot, freeing up street space.
Commissioner Carper asked if it was even possible to build a sidewalk on MnDOT property.
Mr. Fulton responded there are questions about future changes to Highway 7 and changes to the
roadway adjacent to this site. Major changes are not proposed to Hwy. 7 itself but there is a grade
change proposed at Louisiana and Hwy. 7 that may go forward in the next 5-10 years. MnDOT
may be hesitant about allowing a sidewalk at this location.
Commissioner Carper asked if the request was approved with the condition that sidewalk must be
provided, how would that be resolved if MnDOT prohibited sidewalk?
Mr. Fulton responded if sidewalk were required as part of the proposal and MnDOT prohibited its
construction, that would be a very clear reason for a subdivision variance and that would probably
come back as a minor amendment.
Commissioner Kramer asked why landscaping is allowed, but a sidewalk inside the curb line would
not be allowed?
Mr. Fulton said landscaping or a fence can be moved. They are temporary in nature and easily
replaced. Sidewalk is defined as a more permanent improvement.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, noted that a formal request has not been made
to MnDOT for sidewalk. The request could be made prior to City Council.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Commissioner Morris suggested that the variance could be conditioned on a request that the City or
applicant obtain MnDOT’s permission to install a sidewalk. If MnDOT denies the request, the
variance is granted. If they approve, then there is no reason not to put the sidewalk in.
Commissioner Kramer remarked that he just wanted a good faith effort put in regarding sidewalk.
Commissioner Morris said in his experience MnDOT allows many things to be done on frontage
roads as long as the local authority does the permitting and monitoring.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Jay Coleman, 3719 Quebec, said his only concern regards a sidewalk on the north side. With the
parking lot coming in he doesn’t see a lot of use for sidewalk. Pedestrians walking patterns so far tell
him that very few would use that sidewalk. With the setbacks there aren’t that many cars out there.
Michael Newkirk, 3740 Pennsylvania said his issue regards traffic on the Frontage Rd. The drive-in
is at the crest of a hill. He’s baffled as to why parking is even allowed on the Frontage Rd. On April
1st, the opening, there were as many cars parked between Rhode Island and Quebec as possible.
Several of them were parked illegally. As he tried to drive through there was also a semi double
parked on the north side of the Frontage Rd., making deliveries which left about 10 feet of traffic
space, right at the crest of the hill. He spoke about going westbound up the hill last summer with
many cars parked there. Someone left their car with three small kids and one of the children came
within 6 feet of being underneath his front tires. Mr. Newkirk said it’s a huge problem and it seems
to have an easy solution. The parking restrictions as shown at the corners only leave room for 2-4
cars. Right now they are used by the employees. That problem will probably go away. He mentioned
another incident regarding elderly pedestrians walking up the Frontage Road. They probably would
have used a sidewalk. If the parking is eliminated a sidewalk isn’t needed.
Gay Neitzel, 3719 Quebec Ave. S., said there are only a couple of spots left to park on the Frontage
Road. The sidewalk would not be needed if parking was not allowed on the Frontage Road. People
are parking from Quebec to Pennsylvania. The sidewalk wouldn’t do much. The new parking lot
eliminates the need for sidewalk with a lot less problems.
Virgil Probst, 3735 Sumter, said he’s concerned about safety and parking on the service road. The
road is almost too narrow for two cars to pass. Lots of traffic is now coming off of Wooddale. It’s
an accident waiting to happen. There are no parking signs from Texas to Rhode Island.
Joyce Saabye, 3719 Rhode Island, lives right next to the proposed parking lot. She would like the 8
ft. fence and would like to get a variance to put a fence between her property and the proposed
fence.
Ms. McMonigal said a separate request will need to be made for the fence request. She said staff can
advise Ms. Saabye on that application.
Dwight Lincoln, 3736 Quebec Ave. S. said he is concerned about children’s safety. To eliminate
frequent turnarounds in residential driveways that are occurring, he proposed that Quebec become a
one way street beginning at 3600 Quebec, except for buses and garbage trucks with established
routes.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Steve Schussler, applicant, stated he agrees with all of his neighbors remarks. He doesn’t think
parking should be allowed on the Frontage Rd. He said it’s the only section of the entire roadway
where there are cars. He said the drive-in isn’t just about money. It’s about art, about keeping a
drive-in in the community, and about being a good neighbor. The sidewalk would be a sidewalk to
nowhere. Mr. Schussler said eliminating parking on the Frontage Rd. is the most important thing.
Commissioner Carper spoke about the number of seats permitted at the restaurant and parking. He
asked the applicant if it would be acceptable to him to lose restaurant seats if Frontage Road parking
was eliminated.
Mr. Schussler said it was acceptable and he would support that completely.
Mr. Fulton said parking on the Frontage Road has been looked at by the city in great detail. The
City takes the safety issue very seriously. He stated that his best guess is that the resolution approved
for this area years ago by the City Council allowed parking because they wanted to provide parking
for the drive-in in that location. The City Engineer reviewed this carefully and determined the street
is sufficiently wide to allow parking on the south side of the street and still have two lanes of travel.
The City Engineer wasn’t concerned about this as a safety issue. The proposal came before both the
Police and Fire Dept. Staff didn’t hear concerns from them about this issue. Mr. Fulton said the
Planning Commission could certainly make an extra recommendation saying that it recommends to
the City Council that parking be prohibited on the south side of the Frontage Rd. The City
Engineer looked at this and determined that for visibility sake it was most appropriate to prohibit
parking on the east and west side of the frontage road for that distance 30 ft. to the intersection. He
added that a concern from the neighborhood meetings related to traffic and parking on Quebec and
Rhode Island if Frontage Rd. parking was eliminated.
Commissioner Carper asked if the correct approach would be for the neighborhood and applicant to
put together a petition to remove the parking.
Mr. Fulton said yes and such an approach is typically handled by the City Engineer, not the
Planning Department.
Chair Person asked if parking restrictions along the Frontage Road were under MnDOT’s
jurisdiction.
Ms. McMonigal stated that MnDOT usually cedes some local control in these areas regarding
parking.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Robertson stated he had no issues with the conditional use permit or plat. He said he
did have a problem with both variances, commenting that variances are pretty straightforward and
always hinged on hardship. He said he did not see any hardships in this case. Commissioner
Robertson said he doesn’t see any reason to eliminate sidewalk unless MnDOT won’t allow it. He
sees a value to the sidewalk, commenting that it is part of the ordinance and what is desired on every
subdivision. He stated there is no good reason to grant a variance from the sidewalk in this case.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Commissioner Robertson went on to say as far as the setback for parking, there is no hardship at all.
He said any perceived hardship is purely the making of how lines were drawn. The site was recently
rezoned. It was purchased for this reason. If more space was needed, two lots should have been
purchased. He said it doesn’t make sense to buy a lot, rezone, and then ask for a variance to use as
you want. Commissioner Robertson said he was opposed to both variances, and was open to the
other requests.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that we are where we are today because this drive-in
was built here to begin with. Wagner’s was there for years but did not have the impact on that
neighborhood that this particular drive-in has. She said it’s a beautiful drive-in and it’s very creative,
but in her opinion it should not have ever been built on this property. She called it a 500 lb. weight
on a paper table. She said it will be a topic for years to come. She spoke about the impact on the
neighborhood in terms of safety, parking, driving, and noise. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said
she would not support the current requests, just as she didn’t support the proposal to begin with.
She added that she hopes City staff and the City Council are paying attention that we’ve got to start
looking at the impacts these types of redevelopments have on single family neighborhoods.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Fulton if the property will still be addressed as 3712 Quebec after
the replat is complete.
Mr. Fulton replied that hasn’t been discussed, but he expected it probably would be addressed as
3712 Quebec.
Commissioner Morris asked why Hwy. 7 Frontage Rd. is considered a front yard instead of a side
yard, technically.
Mr. Fulton spoke about the way yards are determined, looking at the narrower of two sides when
there is a corner lot. He pointed out the narrower of the two sides for the existing house is
technically the front yard. The drive-in is oriented towards Hwy. 7, constructed here because of
Hwy. 7, and so very clearly has the front yard facing Hwy. 7. The other two yards are then
considered side yards abutting the street.
Commissioner Morris said he understood the logic. He just wanted to clarify addressing and yards.
He said he had no qualms about parking being in the front yard. He said he agrees with
Commissioner Robertson about the sidewalk requirement. He suggested sometime this year the
Commission needs to look at the sidewalk requirements in the ordinance. The intent isn’t to make
everyone have sidewalk in front of their house, it’s to slowly bring in sidewalks to neighborhoods like
this where they don’t exist at all. He said if we’re doing too many variances and it’s not logical, let’s
look at the ordinance. He stated that he supports the front yard parking variance, but not the
sidewalk variance.
Commissioner Carper said he supported granting a variance for the parking lot setback, remarking
that the applicant has made some rear lot adjustments in favor of the resident that he did not have to
do. He said he is sympathetic to the applicant in terms of the cost of the sidewalk, but he has always
favored establishment of sidewalks in subdivision requests over the past several years, except once
when there was a problem with terrain. He said the other requests related to the drive-in seem to be
in order.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Galaxy Drive-In–Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance
Commissioner Kramer discussed hardship. He doesn’t see what the hardship is that Mr. Schussler
might not have known about when he purchased the restaurant. It was a limited site size then, and
the applicant probably could have anticipated this. He said he does see a requirement for sidewalk
because people will be walking to and from the restaurant. Commissioner Kramer said he would
also like to recommend no parking on the Frontage Rd. He commented that he doesn’t want to
make it all no parking today so that only in a year from now the Council can make it parkable. He
said he is concerned that if ownership changes people may forget all about the parking issue.
Chair Person stated he agreed with all of the staff recommendations but agrees strongly with
Commissioner Kramer that there shouldn’t be parking on the Frontage Rd. He added that is
predominantly what was heard from several neighbors who spoke at the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal discussed the parking lot variance. Usually 5 ft. of parking lot is required to be set
back from the property line. Typically there is about 10 ft. of right-of-way. In this case there is 18
ft. of right-of-way. The ordinance does allow a variance if there is something related to the land that
is unusual. There is an extra wide right-of-way and blvd. area between the Frontage Rd. curb and
the proposed parking lot. She explained there is about the same amount of space available with the
normal required setback. That is the reasoning for staff’s support of the zoning variance.
Commissioner Robertson responded he understood the logic, but said setbacks are from property
lines. He stated that all we can operate on is setbacks from a property line and the condition on the
adjacent property doesn’t really affect that. He said he still does not see a hardship.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The
motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Johnston-Madison opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to deny the request for subdivision variance from the plat
requirement that a sidewalk be constructed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Person opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to deny the variance to the parking lot setback.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2 (Carper and
Morris opposed).
Commissioner Morris made a motion of recommendation that the City Council work with
neighbors and the property owner to change the parking restrictions on the Frontage Road.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
HIGHWAY 7
37TH ST W
QUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SHIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 7
Galaxy Drive-In3712 Quebec Ave. S.Conditional Use Permit, Plat, Variance
April 7, 2010
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
75
Feet
RC
R-2
RC
R-2C-2
C-2
QUEBECHIGHWAY 7
RHODE ISLANDHIGHWAY 7
Parking Restrictions:Rhode Island Ave. S., Quebec Ave. S., and TH 7 South Frontage Road.
Parking Restrictions (30' from Intersection)
1
2
client:
project title:
I hereby certify that this plan specification
or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a
duly registered engineer under the laws of
project no.:
scale:
drawn by:
checked by:
team captain:
date:
C 2002 shea, inc.
date:
signed:
reg. no.
the state of:
100 north sixth street
suite 650c
minneapolis, mn
55403-1594
T 612 339 2257
F 612 349 2930
www.shealink.com
SCHUSSLER CREATIVE, INC
858 DECATUR AVE. N.
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN
55427
consultant:
GALAXY DRIVE INN
3712 QUEBEC AVE. S
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
55426
10193.00
KAM
02.16.10
MINNESOTA
46674
sheet title:
KAM
TJC
sheet title:
C4
WATERSHED PLAN
1"= 20'
KAM
TJC
SCALE 1" =
15'30' 60'030'
30'
Meeting Date: May 3, 2010
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:
Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve an Agreement with KKE Architects, Inc. for architectural and engineering
services related to the proposed replacement of Fire Stations No.1 and No. 2.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does City Council wish to proceed with architectural and engineering design for replacing Fire
Stations No.1 and No. 2?
BACKGROUND:
Brief History:
Early in 2006, city staff identified several significant physical and operational deficiencies within Fire
Stations No. 1 and No. 2. Both fire stations were constructed in the 1960’s and are not in full
compliance with the Federal ADA requirements for public facilities or designed to accommodate the
current multi-gender Fire Department staffing. Other concerns relate to the aging mechanical
systems, limited ventilation ability, the lack of apparatus storage space, condition of the apparatus
floors, and the inability to accommodate all firefighters simultaneously for meetings.
A Fire Station Needs Assessment Study and Report completed by BKV Group in November 2006
verified staff’s general concerns that both fire stations have extensive building and operational
deficiencies. From a long term facilities planning perspective, City Council concluded that public
funds would be most efficiently used through the construction of new facilities rather than
renovating existing structures through extensive remodeling and additions.
From 2007 to 2008 the City explored various sites and scenarios for building a single central fire
station or two new fire stations. In 2009, the City Council concluded that building new fire stations
in essentially the same locations as the existing stations would be the best solution.
To accommodate new and expanded fire stations, the City has since acquired three residential
properties south of Fire Station No. 1, and the Parks and Recreation Department plan for
redevelopment of Northside Park provides added space for Fire Station No. 2.
In February 2010, City Council approved a contract with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company
for construction management services for the fire stations replacement project.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project
Architectural and Engineering Services
In previous staff reports, the most recent being for the City Council’s April 26 Study Session, staff
has updated the Council on the process for recruiting architects and the reasons for selecting KKE.
The agreement attached to this report is based on the American Institute of Architects standard form
of agreement between Owners and Architect. This standard form is integrated with other standard
agreements the City will use for construction management and other services for the design and
construction of the fire stations. City Attorney Tom Scott reviewed and approved the attached
contract.
Staff is requesting authorization for the City Manager and Mayor to execute the attached
professional services agreement with KKE Architects, Inc. for architectural and engineering services
for two replacement fire stations. City Council approval is required for any contract over $100,000.
Several representatives from the KKE Architects team will attend the meeting, introduce themselves
to City Council, and respond to any questions City Council may have for them.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
KKE Architects, Inc.’s fee will not exceed $522,750. This fee includes personnel and reimbursable
expenses. The fee represents approximately 5% of the estimated $10.5 million construction cost.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Architect Selection Process Summary
Professional Services Agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project
Architect Selection Process Summary
Staff selected 12 companies to which we sent a request for proposals for architectural and
engineering services. Staff mailed the request for proposals to the 12 firms on February 12, 2010
and an information meeting was held for interested firms on February 18, 2010.
Sources for the list of firms included AIA Minnesota, references from the Fire Chief’s Association
and Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson, and companies that directly expressed interest. The list
was also shared with the Working Group and Directors Oversight Group for input. The 12 firms
included:
• BKV Group • KKE Architects
• Buetow and Associates • LHB, Inc.
• Collaborative Design Group • S.E.H., Inc.
• Cuningham Group • Studio 2030, Inc.
• HCM Architects • Trossen Wright Plutowski Architects
• Hay Dobbs • Tushie Montgomery Architects
The City received 12 responses to the RFP on March 4, 2010. A staff Selection subcommittee
reviewed the proposals and selected five firms to interview on March 31, 2010. The Selection
subcommittee included: Fire Chief Luke Stemmer, Assistant Fire Chief Mark Windschitl, Parks and
Recreation Director Cindy Walsh, Parks Superintendent Rick Beane, Inspections Director Brian
Hoffman, Building Codes Inspector Jim Dube, Community Development Director Kevin Locke,
and Senior Planner Sean Walther. Kraus-Anderson Construction Manager Pat Sims and
Preconstruction Manager Brian Hook assisted in preparing the RFP, review of proposals, and
interviews.
In advance of the interviews, several staff toured fire stations that were recently built by the finalist
firms. The firms interviewed included Short Elliot Hendrickson, Hagen Christian McIlwain
Architects, Collaborative Design Group, KKE Architects and Tushie Montgomery Architects.
Following the first round of interviews, staff invited the two leading candidates back for second
interviews on April 6, 2010.
The selection subcommittee recommended hiring the team of KKE Architects, Bonestroo, and SRF
Consulting Group for architectural and engineering services for the fire stations project. The
recommendation is based on the firm’s experience designing public buildings; sustainable design
expertise; the project manager’s experience designing fire stations and public safety buildings; the
firm’s understanding of the project and sites; and the firm’s competitive fee.
KKE Architects’ proposed fee for services is $498,750, plus $24,000 for reimbursable expenses. The
total cost represents approximately 4.98% of the estimated $10.5 million construction cost. The
cost for architectural and engineering services is below City staff’s budget estimate. The proposed
fees from the 12 firms that responded to the request for proposal ranged from $424,000 to
$789,500.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 4
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 5
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 6
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 7
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 8
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 9
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 10
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 11
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 12
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 13
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 14
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 15
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 16
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 17
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 18
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 19
KKE Architects, Inc.
300 first avenue north
minneapolis, mn 55401
612/339-4200
612/342-9267 fax
www.kke.com
minneapolis las vegas irvine phoenix tucson pasadena expanding the vision SM
APPENDIX A
PREVAILING HOURLY RATES
Position Rate Per Hour
Student Intern $65.00
CAD Tech I 65.00
Interior Design 1 65.00
CAD Tech 2 75.00
Interior Design 2 75.00 – 85.00
CAD Tech 3 85.00
Project Designer 85.00
Job Captain 90.00
Job Captain (P) 100.00
Designer 90.00
Designer 2 95.00
Project Architect 110.00
Specifications Writer 100.00
Senior Job Captain (P) 110.00
Project Manager 115-125.00
Senior Project Architect 125.00
Senior Designer 125.00
Associate 125.00
Senior Interior Designer 120.00
Director of Interior Design 135.00
Specification Writer/Senior Associate 150.00
Senior Associate 150.00
Senior Associate/Special 150.00 – 175.00
Senior Principal 200.00
Effective June 1, 2007
Subject to Periodic Adjustment
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 20
KKE Architects, Inc.
300 first avenue north
minneapolis, mn 55401
612/339-4200
612/342-9267 fax
www.kke.com
minneapolis las vegas irvine phoenix tucson pasadena expanding the vision SM
APPENDIX B
PREVAILING REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Description Cost
Blueprints* $.35 – 1.55
Drafting Mylars* $1.50 – 8.00
Foam Core Boards* $4.00 – 14.00
Photocopy .20
Color Copies (8½ x 11) $2.00/Copy Plus Set Up
Color Copies (11 x 17) $3.00/Copy Plus Set Up
Fax .50/page
Photocopy Stickyback $1.50
Technical Typist $40.00/hour
Photo Ready Publishing $85/8½" x 11" Face
Specification Diskettes $10.00
Mileage .59/mile
Parking As billed to KKE
Other Transportation As billed to KKE
Long-Distance Telephone As billed to KKE
Postage/Delivery Charges As billed to KKE
Model, Sample, Rendering As billed to KKE
Materials/Supplies As billed to KKE
Codes/Ordinances As billed to KKE
Legal As billed to KKE
Consultants Cost plus 25%
CAD Equipment Usage $20.00/hour
Color Plotter $10/SF
Electrostatic Plotter E Size Usage $15.00/sheet
Sales Tax, If Applicable As billed to KKE
Project reimbursable costs will be charged at cost plus 10%.
*Depending on size
Effective July 1, 2008
Subject to Periodic Adjustment
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 21
APPENDIX C
Scope of Services
Architect Services:
1. Provide design and engineering services including architecture, civil, structural,
mechanical, electrical, and landscape for a project of this size, type and scope for an
agency construction management delivered project.
2. Provide assistance and input concerning environmental, geotechnical, site survey or
other services required to move the project forward. The City will contract those
services directly, but will request input from the design firm and construction
manager to guide those services.
3. Attend all associated project meetings, including design meetings, working group
meetings, neighborhood meetings, Planning Commission, Park and Recreation
Advisory Board, and City Council meetings, pre-construction meetings, weekly
construction progress meetings until completion of both projects. Provide exhibits in
preparation for such meeting as needed. Provide meeting minutes and documentation
of design meetings until construction begins.
4. Assist the owner and construction manager in the establishment of the overall master
budget and overall project schedule.
5. Work with the owner and construction manager collaboratively to provide cost
benefit analysis, life cycle analysis, building system analysis, alternative materials,
equipment and methods to provide the most economical, high quality, sustainable
facility possible for the City of St. Louis Park.
6. Provide documents for estimating purposes at the various stages of design and
engineering including schematic, design development and construction documents.
7. Provide/present material selections and finishes to the working group and City
Council.
8. Provide documents for various permits, State reviews, governmental reviews, etc. at
the appropriate stages of the design process.
9. Provide coordination with various governmental agencies, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, Metropolitan Council, etc. for a complete design process.
10. Work with the owner and construction manager collaboratively to provide
coordination with small utility companies for utility relocations, disconnects for
building demolition and connections to new buildings.
11. Work with the owner and construction manager collaboratively to develop a bidding
strategy that is both economically advantageous and provides for timely completion
of the project.
12. Provide potential alternates that can be utilized during bidding to ensure compliance
with the project budgets.
13. Provide construction administration including shop drawing/submittal review and
comments, RFI, ASI and RFP response and issuance to the owner and construction
manager, construction inspection/observation reports, change order cost review, pay
application review, etc. until the projects are completed.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 22
14. Provide verification of punch list completion, review as-builts and operation and
maintenance manuals, and coordinate with the test/balance and commissioning
service for a complete close-out process.
15. Conduct a thorough review of the sites to confirm the needs of the existing and future
occupants.
16. Integrate sustainable building concepts, methods, and materials into the design.
17. Coordinate with other design disciplines; specifically park designers as both sites will
need integration with existing or updated park facilities.
18. Present design and recommendations to City Council.
19. Provide construction plans, specifications, and bid documents to be used for bidding
and construction of the fire stations. Coordinate the front end specifications and
special requirements with the owner and construction manager.
Owner Services:
1. The City will coordinate the municipal entitlement process.
2. The City will maintain a cash flow analysis for this project.
3. Drawings and reproductions for bidding will be paid directly by the City of St. Louis
Park.
4. Testing and special inspection services required during the project will be contracted
through vendors acquired by the City and billed directly to the City.
5. Environmental assessment services will be contracted through vendors acquired by
the City and billed directly to the City.
6. Geotechnical services will be contracted through vendors acquired by the City and
billed directly to the City.
7. Site survey will be contracted through vendors acquired by the City and billed
directly to the City.
8. Building HVAC Test/Balancing and Commissioning services will be contracted
through vendors acquired by the City and billed directly to the City.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 23
APPENDIX D
Deliverables
Schematic Design
• Schematic Site Plans
• Schematic Building Plans
• Elevations
• 3-D Rendering of Proposed Building
• Mechanical and Electrical Narrative
• Building System Narrative
• Sustainability Narrative
• Public Design Process
• Presentation Materials and Exhibits for
Public Presentations
Construction Documents
• Final Bid Documents
• Specifications
• Detail Manual
• Public Design Process
• Presentation Materials and Exhibits for
Public Presentations
Design Development
• Site Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Building Plan
• Elevations
• Preliminary Building Sections
• Typical Wall Sections
• Mechanical Plans
• Electrical Lighting and Power Plans
• Outline Specification
• Public Design Process
• Presentation Materials and Exhibits for
Public Presentations
Bidding
• Responses to Questions
• Issue Addendum (if necessary)
• Review of Bids
• Construction
• Response to Request for Information
• Shop Drawing Review
• Attendance at construction meetings,
punch list and closeout
Services specifically not included in base scope of service: Life Cycle Cost Analysis and
Energy Modeling required for completion of B3 or LEED Certification processes. Our
team will provide costs for these services as part of our recommendations for
sustainability options at completion of the Schematic Design Phase.
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 24
APPENDIX E
Project Representatives
KKE Architects, Inc.
Mohammed Lawal, Principal
Mike Clark, Project Manager
Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle, Project Designer/Sustainable Design
Matthew Streed, Project Architect/Designer
Bonestroo
Steve Alm, Principal
Stephanie Dehart, Mechanical Engineer
Michael Fitzpatrick, Electrical Engineer
Philip Caswell, Lead Structural Engineer
SRF Consulting Group
Michael McGarvey, Landscape Architect
David Juliff, Civil Engineer
Meeting of May 3, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Architectural and Engineering Contract for Fire Stations Project Page 25