Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/07/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA JULY 19, 2010 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Legislative Update -Gary Carlson, League of Minnesota 7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of June 7, 2010 3b. Special Economic Development Authority Minutes of June 28, 2010 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims 6. Old Business 7. New Business 7a. Public Hearing regarding the establishment of a Construction Assistance Program Policy. Recommended Action: Economic Development Authority President to close Public Hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting a Spending Plan for Certain Tax Increment Financing Districts in the City, a Construction Assistance Program Policy, and an Amendment to the St. Louis Park Business Subsidy. 8. Communications 9. Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Junior Leader Recognition. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 3b. Study Session Minutes of June 28, 2010 Meeting of July 19, 2010 Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 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 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions. Recommended Action: Motion to appoint citizen representative Suzanne Metzger as a commissioner to the Housing Authority for a term of 5 years expiring on June 30, 2015. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to the conditions. 8b. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Political Signs. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and set the second reading for August 2, 2010. 8c. Major Amendment to Special Permit - U-Haul Truck Rental Facility, at the Park & Wash Car Wash, 8951 36th Street West. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Major Amendment to the Special Permit, subject to conditions recommended by Staff. 9. Communication Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of July 19, 2010 Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No. 2008-1100 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Project No. 2008-1100. 4b. Approve premises amendment to the on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license for Sauce West End LLC dba Sauce Pizza & Wine located at 1610 West End Boulevard. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $7,227.07 and accepting work for the 2009 reconstruction to the trail system, parking lots and basketball courts in Aquila Park with Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Project Nos. 20090040 and 20090210, City Contract No. 121-09. 4d. To approve Time Warner Cable audit settlement of $3,339 and Comcast audit settlement of $1,542. 4e. Approve second reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 3 of City Code concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing and approve the summary ordinance for publication; and to approve Resolution amending Resolution No. 09-157 adopting annual fees for Liquor licenses. 4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2724 Toledo Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 31-029-24-32-0065. 4g. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of an application for the designation of Transit Improvement Areas at the Beltline, Wooddale, and Louisiana transit stations. 4h. Approve the Resolution approving a Spending Plan for Certain Tax Increment Financing Districts in the City and approving an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy. 4i. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 4j. Approval of Filing of Vendor Claims 4k. Approval for Filing Housing Authority Commission Minutes May 15, 2010 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: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: SPECIAL TITLE: 2010 Legislative Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Gary Carlson, Intergovernmental Relations Director from the League of Minnesota Cities, will be present to provide an overview of upcoming legislative issues and thoughts on state budget issues as it relates to our city. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is there any other information requested by City Council? BACKGROUND: The City Council has expressed an interest in learning more about upcoming legislative activities, particularly relating to state finances, and how they might impact the City. Gary Carlson, Intergovernmental Relations Director from the League of Minnesota Cities, is preparing information to share with Council on this topic. The discussion will include questions on how else the State could impact cities due to their budget problems. What might St. Louis Park have to deal with even though we do not receive LGA/MVHC? Will more costs be passed on to cities for things such as use of the court system or use of some city funds? Will some other type of funding be cut or limitations placed on local government? FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None that this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 7, 2010 1. Call to Order President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, and Sue Santa. Commissioners absent: Julia Ross and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of May 17, 2010 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to approve EDA Vendor Claims. The motion passed 5-0. 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7a. Issuance of a $4.3 million Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Note (Series 2010A) Hoigaard Village Project. EDA Resolution No. 10-09 Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2010 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated that the Redeveloper recently secured a purchaser for the two taxable TIF notes in order to aid the Redeveloper with efforts to refinance the Hoigaard Village project. Given that the Redeveloper has met the required conditions for issuing the Notes as tax exempt, the EDA’s consent to refinancing the notes cannot be unreasonably withheld. He advised that the proposed Series 2010A Note will be issued in the maximum aggregate amount of $4,300,000 and will be secured by available tax increment generated from the Stage 1 and Stage 4 portions of the project, will bear interest at a rate of 5%, and will have a term of 13 years. He added that consistent with the City’s TIF Policy, fiscal disparities will be taken from inside the district, and a 5% administrative fee would be charged to the district. President Finkelstein stated that it was his understanding that the EDA is not assuming any additional liability by the issuance of this Note. Mr. Hunt stated that is correct. President Finkelstein further stated that the Note does not represent a general obligation on the City and even though a new redeveloper is getting involved with this project, the City is not making any additional representations to the redeveloper. Mr. Hunt noted that the EDA still has an agreement in place with the Redeveloper and the parties to that agreement have not changed; but there is a new partner within that group that agreed to purchase the notes. It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-09 awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms, covenants, and directions for the issuance of a Tax Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2010A. The motion passed 5-0. 7b. Updated Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered Living LLC (Wooddale Pointe project) -EDA Res. No. 10-10 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and indicated that Greco Development has an option agreement to purchase two vacant parcels at the southeast corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue, directly across the street from the future light rail station. He stated that Greco Development agreed to purchase and build a five story, mixed use, assisted senior housing complex with 115 senior rental units on floors two through five, with 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 6,000 square feet of common area on the first floor. He advised that construction is expected to commence prior to year’s end with a completion date of March 31, 2012. He stated the site has a total base value of $1.6 million and an estimated market value upon redevelopment of $13.6 million. He stated that taxes payable in 2010 are $45,000; upon redevelopment, the site would generate approximately $228,000 in property taxes. He added that approximately 85 jobs will be created between the residential and commercial portions of the project. He explained that Ehlers & Associates has reviewed the project pro forma and concluded that the proposed Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2010 project is not feasible without TIF assistance; the requested amount of financial assistance, as a percentage of total project value, is less than 4% and is consistent with assistance provided to other redevelopment projects. He stated the Note would be issued in the amount of $490,000 and would be satisfied within five years after project completion. President Finkelstein stated that there is not a lot of redevelopment going on in other communities and acknowledged staff’s efforts in having developers invest in the City’s future and getting projects done. It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-10 approving contract for private redevelopment with Wooddale Catered Living LLC. The motion passed 5-0. 8. Communications – None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 28, 2010 1. Call to Order President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:17 p.m. Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Roll Call 2. New Business 2a. TIF Note Series 2006 Extension – Hoigaard Village Project EDA Resolution No. 10-11 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated the Redeveloper has informed staff that he will not be able to close on July 1 when the Series 2006 TIF Note expires. He indicated that in working through the purchase of the Note, an alternative financing structure emerged that would be more acceptable to the Note purchaser. This financing structure will require additional time. As a result the Redeveloper therefore asked the EDA to once again extend the TIF Note maturity date so that it would not expire. The Redeveloper therefore requested that the EDA extend the maturity date of the Series 2006 TIF Note to November 1, 2010. He added the EDA has been provided with an email from Northern Holding II LLC indicating that it has every intention of proceeding with the transaction. He added that staff also spoke with Dougherty Funding and they have indicated that they are fairly confident the transaction will be completed well within the additional 120 days proposed and do not believe any further extensions would be necessary. He pointed out the proposed TIF note extension will have no other effect other than to provide an additional 120 days to complete the refinancing of the TIF Note and would not alter the obligations of the Redeveloper under its Redevelopment Contract with the EDA. He then introduced Frank Dunbar with Union Land II LLC and Martha Ingram of Kennedy Graven. Commissioner Mavity requested information regarding the current success of the overall project. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: Special Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2010 Mr. Hunt stated that the project is 80% completed and the Redeveloper has completed all the required site work and utility work on the project as well as the soil remediation. He advised that both Harmony Vista and Camerata are over 90% leased, and that efforts are being made to lease the remaining portions of the commercial component within Harmony Vista. President Finkelstein asked what would happen if the EDA does not extend the Note. Mr. Hunt replied that there is a risk of the Redeveloper failing to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the Note, resulting in a default which would be a much more difficult situation in work through. Mr. Dunbar stated the repercussions of not extending the Note will primarily impact Citizens Bank, the bondholder on the Note, because the Redeveloper does not have the wherewithal to pay off the Note and would therefore default on the Note. Ms. Ingram added that if the process is stopped now, the Note becomes due and the Redeveloper would be required to come up with all outstanding principal. Commissioner Mavity stated that it is in the best interests of the City that this entire corridor is thriving and viable. She asked the Redeveloper to comment on its ability to meet this timeframe. Mr. Dunbar explained that the first extension was requested in order to allow them to take the bonds to the marketplace for sale; during that period, the partner in this transaction indicated he wanted to buy the bonds instead of selling the bonds to the public. He stated that the partner in this transaction then indicated he wanted to pursue an “A/B structure,” whereby an “A Note” worth $3.4 million gets sold to the public at a higher rate and the purchaser takes the remaining amount in a “B Note” at a lower rate, leaving more funds to cover the project. Commissioner Sanger expressed frustration with the continuing requests for extensions and questioned the Redeveloper’s ability to finish the project. President Finkelstein stated that he generally does not like extensions, but we live in unique times with unique financing issues. He added that if the project is allowed to go into default, it will negatively impact the City. Commissioner Santa stated that when the second extension was provided in April, she asked if the extension should be longer. She indicated she has the same concern now, and would rather provide the Redeveloper with a reasonable amount of time up front rather than in a piecemeal fashion. She asked if the Redeveloper can provide a strong assurance that the refinancing can be completed by November 1st. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Subject: Special Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2010 Mr. Dunbar stated that all the parties are committed to completing the refinancing by November 1st. Commissioner Omodt stated that he is supportive of the requested extension. He indicated that not every project goes the way we think it should despite our best intentions, and the goal is to get it done right. He added there is no exposure to the City in granting this extension. He then called the question. It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-11 approving an Amendment to Certain Terms of the Authority’s Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2006. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 5a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Vendor Claims. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period June 1, 2010 through July 16, 2010. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Vendor Claims Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:29:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -6/1/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 8,343.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMEC GEOMATRIX INC 8,343.50 4,687.50AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT LANDB&M HAZELWOOD MASONRY INC 4,687.50 210.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORECAST PUBLIC ARTWORKS 210.00 148.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHUNT, GREG 148.00 791.25DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN 791.25 3,341.25AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT LANDKEVITT EXCAVATING INC 3,341.25 6,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 6,000.00 450.00AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCOMB GROUP LTD 1,327.25DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 1,777.25 340.20DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 340.20 11.04DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT 11.04 10.47DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER 10.47 2,824.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH 2,824.00 4,323.58DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 4,323.58 Report Totals 32,808.04 EDA Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 5a) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 7a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing- Establishment of a Construction Assistance Program Policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Economic Development Authority President to close Public Hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting a Spending Plan for Certain Tax Increment Financing Districts in the City, a Construction Assistance Program Policy, and an Amendment to the St. Louis Park Business Subsidy Policy POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the adoption of the proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy which would provide deferred loans of up to $500,000 to businesses to facilitate qualified construction projects in the city? BACKGROUND: At the April 12, 2010 Study Session, staff reviewed several provisions within the recently enacted Minnesota Jobs Bill. One such provision in the Bill authorized that cash balances in existing TIF districts could be used to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities for a time limited period. In this case construction would need to have started by July 1, 2011 with no expenses eligible for reimbursement after December 31, 2011. Staff noted that one local company was considering the relocation or expansion of its local operations and requested financial assistance to help it remain in St. Louis Park. Given the potential to assist a local company under the new law, there was consensus to consider the use of the cash balances within the city’s TIF districts as the funding source to help that company remain and expand in St. Louis Park. The EDA also requested that staff prepare criteria by which to consider this company’s and other companies’ requests for construction assistance. In response, staff prepared the proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy. The Policy was submitted for EDA review at the June 28th study session. No comments were received from the City Council/EDA on the draft Policy. In recent weeks, staff has been in discussion with two other local companies that could be potential applicants to the proposed Construction Assistance Program. One is a commercial/industrial property management company that is looking to make needed upgrades to one of its older buildings in order to secure new tenants. The other is a small industrial company that is in leased space and wishes to purchase a larger industrial building and make substantial renovations to it in order to facilitate its growing business. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Proposed Construction Assistance Program Pursuant to the newly enacted Jobs Bill and the discussion at the April 12th Study Session, it is proposed that the EDA establish a simple, straight-forward, assistance program to avail the city of the state’s stimulus authorization. The purpose of the Construction Assistance Program is to spur the immediate construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or mixed use buildings within the city of St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new investment should result in a higher market value for the underlying commercial or industrial property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment. Ehlers & Associates has determined that, as of the end of this year, there would be a total of approximately $1.6 million in fund balances available between the EDA’s nine TIF districts. Of this amount $550,000 has been reserved for affordable housing initiatives leaving $1,050,000 available for Construction Assistance. It is proposed that the first $500,000 in Construction Assistance be reserved for the company that requested funding at the April 12th study session. Staff expects to hear shortly whether this company plans to formally request all or a portion of these funds. The remaining $550,000 would be made available through the Construction Assistance Program to assist other businesses construct building improvements within the city. No one business would be provided with more than $500,000 and funds would be available on a first-come/first-serve basis. The Construction Assistance Program would provide funding upon demonstrated need. A business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested assistance is warranted and necessary and without such assistance the project would be unable to proceed. Such assistance would be provided as a deferrable loan to reimburse up to a third (33%) of eligible project costs. Applications would only be considered for private construction projects requiring between $20,000 and $500,000 in Construction Assistance. (For example: a business wishes to upgrade its facilities and make it more energy efficient. The business has sworn construction statements reflecting a total project cost of $280,000. The business could apply for up to $92,400 in Construction Assistance.) If the subject building is held and properly maintained by the business and/or building owner for 5 years after project completion, the entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the subject property is sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding is provided. The attached Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application further outlines the program’s objectives, eligible & ineligible costs, timing, qualifications and application procedures. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Required Approvals The EDA must hold public hearing regarding its proposed use of TIF fund balances after which it must adopt a written spending plan (attached) that specifically authorizes the assistance. Because the financial assistance provided under the proposed Program may constitute business subsidies under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, the EDA’s Business Subsidy Policy should be amended to include the proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy (attached). Like many actions involving the use of tax increment, the required Spending Plan and the Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy also require City Council approval. Thus a resolution providing such approvals has been likewise placed on the Consent Agenda. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is proposed the EDA consider the use of up to approximately $1.6 million in TIF district cash balances as the funding source for a short term Construction Assistance Program that would provide deferred loans of up to $500,000 to stimulate private construction activity within the city. VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development. Attachments: Resolution Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application Spending Plan Business Subsidy Policy Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SPENDING PLAN FOR CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY, A CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY , AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LOUIS PARK BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY. AND BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Background; Findings. (a) The Authority and City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) have previously established the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Elmwood Village, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Hoigaard Village Tax Increment Financing Districts (the “TIF Districts”) and adopted tax increment financing plans therefor (the “TIF Plans”). (b) The Authority proposes to adopt a spending plan for the TIF Districts in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m in substantially the form submitted to the Authority (the “Spending Plan”) to utilize existing tax increment revenues from the TIF Districts in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs. (c) The Authority further proposes to approve guidelines for evaluating requests for financial assistance in connection with the Spending Plan, which guidelines have been memorialized in a Construction Assistance Program Policy (the “Program Policy”). (d) Financing offered by the City or Authority pursuant to the Spending Plan could constitute a business subsidy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended (the “Business Subsidy Act”), and Authority proposes to adopt an amendment to the City’s Business Subsidy Policy (the “Amendment”) to authorize such financing. (e) The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Spending Plan and the Amendment, including, but not limited to, causing notice of a public hearing to be published and requesting that the City Council of the City hold a public hearing on the date hereof, on the adoption of the Spending Plan and the Amendment. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Section 2. Adoption of Spending Plan, Program Policy, and Amendment. (a) The Spending Plan for the TIF Districts, the Program Policy, and the Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy are hereby approved and adopted in substantially the form submitted to the Authority, subject to approval by the City Council after the public hearing. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority July 19, 2010 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy DRAFT Construction Assistance Program POLICY & APPLICATION Adopted July 19, 2010 Conformance with the attached Policy does not entitle any applicant to financial assistance under this program. This Policy states the current minimum and desired qualifications necessary to approve an application. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) retains the right to accept or deny applications on the basis of evaluating additional criteria it deems prudent and necessary. All applicants are subject to approval by the St. Louis Park EDA or its designee(s). This program may be amended or discontinued at any time without prior notice Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy For the purpose of this Application, the "City" shall also mean the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA), which conducts various economic development, housing and redevelopment programs and activities within the City of St. Louis Park. “Applicant” shall mean the business entity undertaking the proposed construction (this may include the property owner). OVERVIEW: The State of Minnesota Jobs Bill was signed into law on April 1, 2010. Its primary objective was to stimulate economic development and job creation in the State. Among other things this law allows cities with cash balances in their existing TIF districts to use those funds to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or other assistance for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities, if doing so will create or retain jobs in Minnesota, including construction jobs. Such construction must commence before July 1, 2011, and would not have commenced before that date without the assistance. Any funds utilized under this authorization must be expended by December 31, 2011. The purpose of this Policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of its TIF cash balances for Construction Assistance to stimulate private construction projects within City. This Policy shall be used as a guide in reviewing and processing requests for construction projects requiring a minimum of $20,000 and no more than $500,000 in financing. Pursuant to the newly enacted Jobs Bill, the purpose of the Construction Assistance Program is to spur the immediate construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or mixed use buildings within the city of St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new investment should result in a higher market value for the underlying commercial or industrial property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment. Each project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Qualifications outlined within this document. The EDA retains the right to evaluate projects under this Policy as it sees fit so as to meet the overall objectives of the Jobs Bill. The Construction Assistance Program will provide reimbursements for qualified construction activities. Projects are highly encouraged to utilize Construction Assistance in conjunction with commercial lending sources. Assistance will be considered upon evidence that construction would not have occurred without such assistance and other financing is not feasible. Projects which receive $200,000 or more in Construction Assistance are subject to the City’s Green Building Policy adopted February 16, 2010. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy All projects approved pursuant to this Policy that constitute a business subsidy under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, as amended, will be subject to the City of St. Louis Park/St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Business Subsidy Policy. OBJECTIVES: The EDA will consider providing Construction Assistance to facilitate private construction projects to achieve one or more of the following objectives: • Revitalize identified key areas of the city through the construction of new buildings or building expansions. • Renovate existing buildings to meet current building code standards and accessibility requirements, enhance building energy efficiency, and improve the health and safety of occupants so as to retain or attract business tenants in the city. • Assist local businesses expand and/or improve their facilities for their own use or the benefit of retaining or attracting tenants. • Stabilize or increase the market value of the city’s building stock so as to expand the municipal tax base. • Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and quality of jobs (e.g. stable employment with attractive wages and benefits). • Encourage projects that exhibit efficient urban design; quality architecture and materials; sustainable “green” design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater management; improved public safety; and decrease the capital and operating costs of local government. • Serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment. • Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in Vision St. Louis Park including: • being a connected and engaged community. • being a leader in environmental stewardship. • promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives. TERMS: The Construction Assistance Program is based upon demonstrated need. A business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested Assistance is warranted and necessary and without such Assistance the project would be unable to proceed. Such Assistance would be provided as a deferrable loan to reimburse up to a third (33%) of eligible costs. The EDA will only consider applications for private construction projects requiring between $20,000 and $500,000 in Construction Assistance. (For example: a business wishes to upgrade its facilities and make it more energy efficient. The business has sworn construction statements reflecting a total project cost of $280,000. The business could apply for up to $92,400 in Construction Assistance.) If the subject building is held and properly maintained by the business and/or building owner for 5 years after project completion, the entirety of the loan will be forgiven. If the subject property is sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding is provided. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy ELIGIBLE COSTS: The following costs are eligible for reimbursement under the Construction Assistance Program: • Site-related work including: contamination clean up, soil correction, pilings site, and stabilization. • Utility relocation or upgrades • Building demolition • Building construction • Building expansion • Building rehabilitation (specifically: costs to bring building into compliance with the current building code and ADA requirements, costs related to the installation of fire suppression and energy efficient HVAC systems, as well as upgrades to a building’s electrical, plumbing and wall systems) • “Green Building” or sustainable building features • Tenant improvements which require construction • Nonconforming use removal INELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: The following costs are ineligible for reimbursement under the Construction Assistance Program: • Upfront financing. The EDA will only provide assistance (reimbursement) upon evidence that qualified costs were actually incurred. • Soft costs, legal fees, permits, architectural, engineering, design fees, taxes, closing costs, real estate fees, etc. • Furnishings, equipment, inventory, or other expenses that are not improvements to the real estate. • Place extraordinary demands on City services. • Would likely generate environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments. • Involve business activities that are inconsistent with Vision St. Louis Park including but not limited to: sexually oriented businesses, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, off sale liquor stores, tobacco shops, gun shops, check cashing businesses or those considered to create environmental problems due to the type of operation or processes involved in the business operation. • Continue and/or expand nonconforming uses. TIMING: All applications are subject to review and approval by the EDA and require a public hearing. Deferrable loans will be awarded on a first-come/first-serve basis. Construction must commence no later than July 1, 2011 and reimbursements must occur no later than December 31, 2011. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy QUALIFYING PROJECTS: All proposed construction projects considered by the City of St. Louis Park must meet each of the following Minimum Qualifications and will also be evaluated based on their ability to meet the Desired Qualifications for assistance. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these qualifications will automatically be approved. Meeting the qualifications creates no contractual rights on the part of any applicant to receive financial assistance. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: A. The proposed project must be located within the City of St. Louis Park and result in the construction, expansion or renovation of a building. Projects which result in making buildings comply with the property maintenance code and/or make life/safety improvements may also qualify. B. The proposed project must result in the retention or creation of jobs within the city (including construction jobs). C. Applicants must have been in business a minimum of three (3) years and must demonstrate that the proposed construction project would not have commenced without Construction Assistance. D. The applicant must provide market data, tenant letters of intent or other evidence which support the market potential/demand for the proposed project. E. The applicant must be able to demonstrate the ability to commence the construction project by July 1, 2011. F. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Strategic Plan and Vision St. Louis Park. G. The proposed construction project must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinance must be under active consideration by the City at the time a Development Contract providing the assistance is scheduled for approval. H. The applicant must be willing to enter into a Development Contract with the EDA which outlines the requirements and obligations of both parties for the provision of Construction Assistance. I. Assistance will not be provided when the applicant's credentials, in the sole judgment of the City, are inadequate due to past track record relating to: quality and completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered relevant by the City. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS: A. The proposed project should be located within areas of the City envisioned for Construction and/or revitalization. B. Construction projects should meet public policy objectives as determined by the City Council. Preference will be given to projects that: • Include efficient urban architectural design, high quality construction and materials, additional green space. • Provide significant improvement to surrounding land uses, the neighborhood, and/or the City. • Aim to clean-up contaminated sites and buildings. • Facilitate the expansion/location of a business or industry with an environmentally sound track record. • Provide new and/or retained employment that provides wages and/or benefits above the MSA average. • Increase the market value of the property. • Fill an unmet market need. • Consistent with Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Development principles. • Substantially improve the building’s accessibility, energy efficiency and/or safety. • Reduce demands on City services (i.e. public safety). Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy APPLICATION PROCEDURE: 1. Meet with appropriate City staff to discuss the scope of the project, anticipated costs, financial needs, public participation being requested, time schedule, and other information as may be necessary. The loan request shall be reviewed by City staff on a preliminary basis as to the feasibility of the project. 2. If, in staff’s judgment, the project appears to meet the Program’s objectives and the amount of requested assistance appears reasonable, the applicant may elect to file a formal application for Construction Assistance at which time the applicant will be asked to submit a $1,000 Application Fee. 3. Following the necessary project review by staff, the EDA will determine whether the proposed project is sufficiently consistent with the Policy to merit funding. Applications will be considered by the EDA in Study Session at which staff will present the proposed project and its findings. The applicant should also be prepared to make a formal presentation of the project. If the project is favorably received a public hearing will be scheduled and the applicant will be required to enter into a Development Agreement. Applicants agree to fully reimburse the EDA for all costs it incurs related to the preparation of such an Agreement. 4. A public hearing must be held after which the EDA must adopt a written spending plan that specifically authorizes the assistance along and approve the Development Agreement. A notice of the public hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once and not less than 10 days and not more than 30 days prior to the date of hearing. 5. Upon project completion staff should be invited to tour the facility and verify the completed improvement(s). 6. On or before December 1, 2011, applicant must submit evidence of total project costs incurred and paid (reflecting individual improvements constructed and their respective costs) along with the specific qualified costs for which reimbursement is being sought. Construction Assistance will then be disbursed prior to December 31, 2011. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 13 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Construction Assistance Program Application General Information 1. Business Name: Address: Contact Person: Telephone Number: Email Address: 2. Brief description of the business seeking Construction Assistance: Building and Project Information 3. Location and address of project. 4. Proposed construction project: business type(s) and/or use(s), prospective tenants, building(s) square footage, and building height and materials. If new building and expansion projects please provide a preliminary site plan. 5. Other project elements: 6. Is any of the proposed project area blighted, contaminated or environmentally challenged? If yes, please explain. 7. Present ownership of the building. Is applicant the building owner? If not, what are the terms for property acquisition including purchase price, closing date and any other pertinent conditions for Purchase Agreement. If applicant is a tenant in the building please provide evidence property owner is in agreement with proposed project. 8. Who will own the building upon completion of the proposed project? 9. Project construction schedule: a. Estimated construction start date: b. Estimated construction completion date: c. If phased project: year % completed year % completed 10. Name & address of architect, engineer, and general contractor. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 14 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Project Cost/Financial Analysis 11. Please submit sworn construction statements or written bids indicating total estimated project costs (such as those listed below). a. Property Acquisition $ b. Soil Correction/Remediation $ c. Demolition $ d. Site Grading and Excavation $ e. Utilities $ f. Road Improvements $ g. Curb, gutter, parking lot, sidewalks $ h. Building Construction $ i. Parking Ramp (if applicable) $ j. Landscaping $ k. HVAC and other bldg equipment $ l. Architectural & Engineering Fees $ m. Legal Fees $ n. Financing Costs $ o. Broker Costs $ p. Developer Fee $ q. Contractor Fees $ r. Contingencies $ s. Other (please specify) $ t. TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 12. Sources of Funding/Financing: a. Equity $ b. Loan Source(s) $ (please provide lender contact information and summary of financing terms) c. Other Sources (explain) $ 13. Total projected Market Value of property upon project completion: $ 14. Estimated amount of Construction Assistance required in order to make project viable. 15. Please submit an itemized list of project costs for which Construction Assistance is being requested (See above list of eligible costs). 16. Specific reasons why, “but for” the use of Construction Assistance, this project would not be possible. 17. What other alternative financing sources have been sought and why are they not adequate or feasible? Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 15 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Job Creation/Retention 18. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be retained in the City as a direct result of this project? 19. What is the expected pay range of these retained positions (without benefits)? Pay Range # of FTE Employees Total Wages $0 to $14,999 0 $ $15,000 to $24,999 0 $ $25,000 to $29,999 0 $ $30,000 to $44,999 0 $ $45,000 to $59,999 0 $ $60,000 & Up 0 $ TOTAL 0 $ 20. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be created in the City as a direct result of this project? 21. What is the expected pay range of these new positions (without benefits)? Pay Range # of FTE Employees Total Wages $0 to $14,999 0 $ $15,000 to $24,999 0 $ $25,000 to $29,999 0 $ $30,000 to $44,999 0 $ $45,000 to $59,999 0 $ $60,000 & Up 0 $ TOTAL 0 $ Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 16 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy Energy Savings 22. If project includes improvements to the building’s energy usage, please describe any energy savings this project is likely to achieve. Other Community Impacts 23. Please describe any other beneficial economic/social impacts this project is likely to have on the community. Applicant Background 24. Background on the applicant’s company, principals, and history. Please list previous related projects and locations as well as experience of this particular construction team working together. 25. Has applicant, applicant’s company, partner or related affiliate ever filed bankruptcy? If yes, please explain. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 17 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy SPENDING PLAN FOR THE: VICTORIA PONDS PARK CENTER HOUSING CSM MILL CITY EDGEWOOD ELMWOOD VILLAGE WOLFE LAKE AQUILA COMMONS HOIGAARD VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS ADOPTED BY THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 19, 2010 ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 2010 Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 18 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy SPENDING PLAN FOR THE VICTORIA PONDS, PARK CENTER HOUSING, CSM, MILL CITY, EDGEWOOD, ELMWOOD VILLAGE, WOLFE LAKE, AQUILA COMMONS, AND HOIGAARD VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS I. PURPOSE The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) administers the Tax Increment Financing Districts listed above (the “TIF Districts”) in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), and proposes to adopt a Spending Plan for the TIF Districts in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m. The purpose of the Spending Plan is to develop or redevelop sites, lands or areas within the City in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan by using available tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, which will create or retain jobs in this state. II. PLAN The Authority is authorized as follows: (a) To use available tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, and/or mixed- use buildings and ancillary facilities requiring a minimum of $20,000 and no more than $500,000 in financing assistance. Preference for financing assistance under this Spending Plan will be given to projects utilizing efficient urban design; quality architecture and materials; sustainable “green” design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater management; improved public safety; and decreased capital and operating costs to local government, as set forth in the Authority’s Construction Assistance Program Policy adopted on the date hereof. The construction or substantial rehabilitation of such facilities must commence before July 1, 2011 (unless otherwise authorized by law) and would not commence by such date without the assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan. (b) To amend the budget set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the TIF Districts as necessary to provide for the assistance authorized by this Spending Plan. (c) To take any other action necessary and authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m in connection with the construction or substantial rehabilitation of facilities of the type described in Clause (a) above. The assistance provided pursuant to this Plan may be subject to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Business Subsidy Law”), if applicable. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 19 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY As Amended July 19, 2010 1. PURPOSE Business subsidies are considered investments in the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and are meant to encourage desirable development and/or redevelopment that benefit the City. The purpose of this policy is to establish the City’s criteria relating to the provision of business subsidies for private development. This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. The City of St. Louis Park and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) maintain several policy documents which speak to the general goals and objectives for the provision of public assistance for private development or redevelopment activities. These documents include, but are not limited to: The Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, the Development Fund Policy, the Tax Increment Financing Policy, and the Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy. The further intent of this policy is to satisfy the requirements of the Business Subsidies Act (the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, as amended. Terms used in this Policy are intended to have the same meanings as if used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies granted under the Act if and to the extent required thereby. 2. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS The City and EDA’s ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established within the Act and every business subsidy is subject to the requirements set forth within the Act. 3. PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT All business subsidies must meet a public purpose as provided in Section 5 that may include, but must not be limited to, increasing the property tax base. All business subsidy recipients must enter into a business subsidy agreement with the City and EDA that complies with Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, subd. 3. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 20 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy 4. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY a. All business subsidies approved by the City and EDA should meet the criteria set forth herein. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any potential developer or the City or EDA. b. All proposed projects must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and ordinances must be under active consideration by the City at the time of approval. c. Potential recipients shall be required to provide such studies, reports, appraisals, information or other data as may be requested by the City and EDA prior to consideration of a request for business subsidy. d. Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be provided solely to broaden a developer’s profit margins on a project. e. All business subsidy requests shall meet the “but for” test or otherwise demonstrate why a business subsidy is necessary and serves a public purpose as described in this policy. The “but for” test means that the project would not develop solely on private investments in the reasonable future. The developer shall provide findings for the “but for” test. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the recipient must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the “but for” test. The potential recipient will be required to provide all documentation necessary to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. f. All projects requesting business subsidies will be evaluated to determine if their business assumptions are reasonable, their financial projections are sound and their proposed venture(s) are likely to be successful. 5. PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA a. Every business subsidy request will be evaluated according to the public purpose criteria specified below which shall apply to all potential recipients. • Support the expansion of businesses that have an environmentally sound track record and provide desirable goods and services. • Increase the community’s property tax base (e.g., generate a net increase in the amount of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment). • Create quality, new jobs (e.g., stable employment and/or attractive wages and benefits). • Retain quality, existing jobs (where job loss is specific and demonstrable). • Eliminate or prevent “substandard” or “blighted” areas. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 21 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy • Cleanup contaminated properties. • Reduce public health risks, safety concerns or criminal activity. • Promote revitalization or economic diversification of neighborhoods. • Develop/redevelop underutilized properties. • Stimulate additional investment or “spin-off” businesses and jobs in the area. • Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. The above list is not exclusive; the City and EDA will consider public purposes that otherwise meet their development and redevelopment goals. b. Except as provided in Section 6 below, each recipient of a business subsidy must create or retain a number of jobs to be specified in the business subsidy agreement. . There may be separate goals for the number of part-time jobs or full-time jobs. Preference will be provided to those projects that create and/or retain a significant number of quality jobs as defined above. In cases where the public purpose is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of the subsidy must demonstrate that job loss is specific and demonstrable. The setting of specific job goals will be sensitive to local economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resources of the recipient and the competitive environment in which the recipient’s business exists. c. Except as provided in Section 6 below, each recipient of a business subsidy must meet wage goals for the jobs created or retained. The goals will be specified in the business subsidy agreement. Preference will be provided to projects that create and/or retain stable jobs within the City that offer wages significantly higher than the Federal minimum wage and attractive benefits. In all cases, 90% of the jobs created or retained as a result of any business subsidy approved by the City and EDA must pay at least 110% of the Federal minimum wage for full-time and part-time employees 6. CRITERIA WHEN JOB CREATION/RETENTION IS NOT A GOAL The grantor may determine, after a public hearing, that job creation or job retention is not a goal of the business subsidy. In those cases, the recipient must meet at least one of the following minimum requirements: a. The proposed business subsidy must accomplish the removal, rehabilitation or redevelopment of, or prevention of development or spread of, a blighted area as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subd. 11, or must constitute a cost of correcting conditions that permits designation of a redevelopment district or renewal and renovation district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179; or b. The proposed business subsidy must improve public infrastructure or public facilities, including without limitation streets, sewers, storm sewers, streets, parks, recreational facilities, and other City facilities; or Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 22 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy c. The proposed business subsidy must remove physical impediments to development of land, including without limitation poor soils, bedrock conditions, steep slopes, or similar geotechnical problems. The above requirements must be expressed as specific, measurable and tangible goals in each business subsidy agreement. The job and wage goals that would otherwise be required may be set at zero. 7. FIVE YEAR RULE Each recipient of a business subsidy must agree to continue operation within the City for a minimum of five years after the benefit date. After a public hearing, the grantor may authorize the recipient to move outside the City within the five-year period. 8. OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES Each business subsidy will be evaluated against the criteria in this policy but also against other applicable City or EDA policies including, but not limited to, the Tax Increment Financing Policy, the Development Fund Policy, the Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, the Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy, and the Construction Assistance Program Policy. 9. FAILURE TO MEET SPECIFIED GOALS Each business subsidy agreement will require a recipient failing to meet the specified goals by the specified date to pay back the assistance plus interest to the grantor, or at the grantor’s request, to the account created under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.551. Any repayment may be prorated to reflect partial fulfillment of goals. The interest rate must be set at no less than the implicit deflator as defined by section 116J.994, subd. 6. The grantor may, after a public hearing, extend the period for meeting job and wage goals for up to one year. The grantor may extend the period for meeting any other goals for any period specified by the grantor, by documenting in writing the reason for the extension and filing that explanation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development along with the grantor’s next annual report on business subsidies. Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 23 Subject: Public Hearing: Construction Assistance Program Policy 10. DEVIATION FROM POLICY When granting a business subsidy, the grantor may deviate from the criteria in this Policy by documenting in writing the reason for the deviation and filing that explanation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development along with the grantor’s next annual report on business subsidies. The grantor will not approve a deviation from these criteria unless the applicant provides a written request describing why the deviation is needed to permit the proposed project to proceed, and the grantor determines in its sole discretion that such deviation is reasonable and necessary. 11. COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Any subsidy granted by the City and EDA may be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the City and EDA. b. It will be necessary for both the recipient and the EDA to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. 12. RIGHT TO MODIFY POLICY The City and EDA reserve the right to modify this Policy from time to time in accordance with the procedures of the Act. Amendments to this Policy are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 2a 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: Junior Leader Recognition. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor Jeff Jacobs is asked to recognize the Junior Leaders for their service this summer. Recreation Supervisor Nate Rosa will be in attendance to provide background and current information on the summer program. (Recreation Coordinator Lisa Abernathy and Summer Playground Director Katie Lee will be in attendance to assist with presentation.) POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: There were 20 youth volunteers that completed the program this summer; they have volunteered over 800 hours this summer, collectively. Several of these volunteers have been involved for many years. The Junior Leaders Program has been part of the Parks and Recreation Department for over 18 years. Junior Leaders for the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department volunteer during June and July in the Summer Playground Program. The goal of this program is to offer 7th through 9th grade youth an opportunity to maintain their relationship with the summer playground program, while gaining valuable on-the-job experience assisting full-time leaders with other youth, ages 6 to 12. The program also gives them the opportunity to be a positive role model to younger youth in their community. Job responsibilities included assisting leaders with program activities as well as set-up and clean-up and initiating activities for playground participants. Junior Leaders assisted program participants in understanding games and crafts projects, keeping them interested and involved in activities as well as aware of upcoming events. Junior Leaders also assisted in limited supervision of program participants to ensure their safety at the park. Junior Leaders demonstrated responsibility, positive attitudes and a willingness to spend some of their summer volunteering their time at a neighborhood park. During their time in the parks this summer, they became role models for the program participants they worked with, as well as excellent helpers for the full-time leaders. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2 Subject: Junior Leader Recognition Junior Leaders were required to work a minimum of 40 hours during the Summer Playground Program. Junior Leaders are rewarded with this special recognition evening, a letter of recommendation, and passes to The Rec Center’s ice arena. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 28, 2010 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:35 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 Clerk (Ms. Stroth), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Roll Call 2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 2a. Second Reading of Housekeeping Amendments to Home Rule Charter/City Code regarding staff positions and municipal elections. Ordinances No. 2386-10 and No. 2387-10 Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated the Home Rule Charter amendment requires a unanimous vote of the entire City Council. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve Ordinance No. 2386-10 amending the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, and 6.10 Concerning Municipal Elections and City Position Titles. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve Ordinance No. 2387-10 amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Sections 2- 350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99 Concerning City Position Titles. The motion passed 7-0. 2b. Liquor License Premises Amendment for Granite City Food & Brewery City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Special City Council Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is adding a patio dining area which requires an amendment to its current on-sale intoxicating liquor license. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor license for Granite City Restaurant Operations, Inc., dba Granite City Food & Brewery located at 5500 Excelsior Boulevard. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 28, 2010 The meeting convened at 6:37 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Senior Accountant (Ms. Monson), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guests: Chris Culp, Excelsior Group; David Bade, Duke Realty; Mike Krych and Gretchen Camp, BKV Group. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 12 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for July 12. He advised that the civic facility study is being prepared by Ms. Walsh and will be presented to Council in the next month or two. 2. Charitable Gambling Regulations Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that staff recently met with the City’s current gambling managers to receive comments; it was the consensus of the eight people attending the meeting that no changes were needed to the current gambling requirements in the City. She also presented the City Attorney’s opinion with respect to the 10% contribution fund requiring organizations to expend a designated percentage or all of its net profits in the City. Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding the limits of the City’s authority with respect to designating who receives the proceeds from charitable gambling. Ms. Stroth stated that the limitations on charitable gambling proceeds are outlined in the statutes. She explained that if the City were to adopt a 10% City contribution fund, the fund would be subject to the same limitations contained in the statutes. Councilmember Mavity asked if the City Council has the authority to narrow the trade area so that proceeds are all allocated within St. Louis Park, without creating the 10% City contribution fund. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Ms. Stroth replied that state law does not allow cities the authority to narrow the trade area or to authorize what specific lawful purpose expenditures must be in the trade area. As defined by state law, the trade area includes all cities contiguous to the city of St. Louis Park. Mr. Scott stated that if an organization donated 100% of its net profits in St. Louis Park, that organization could be exempted from the 10% contribution requirement. Councilmember Mavity stated that the goal is to have charitable gambling proceeds accrue to the benefit of the City and organizations within the City. Councilmember Omodt stated that there have been complaints received in the past that some charitable gambling proceeds from organizations in the City are directed to Hopkins, and the Council has to answer to residents who question why gambling proceeds are not going to organizations in the City. He added that two gambling managers have commented that they are working with an outside organization and that they were not having the best experience with them. Councilmember Sanger requested additional information regarding the City’s administrative costs to cover charitable gambling in the City, and to consider increasing the City’s current 1/10 of 1% local tax. She stated that she is also supportive of a 10% contribution fund with an exemption for those organizations who already contribute all of their proceeds to St. Louis Park charities. Discussion took place regarding the various gambling regulations and local authority. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to analyze and present Council with data regarding the City’s administrative costs, recommendations regarding an increase in the local gambling tax, and to prepare an ordinance amendment requiring a 10% contribution fund with an exemption for those organizations who contribute a designated percentage of their proceeds to St. Louis Park charities. 3. West End Residential Development Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Ms. McMonigal stated that there has been an interest expressed in incorporating a housing component in the West End development by amending the current hotel site to residential. She then introduced David Bade from Duke Realty and Chris Culp from the Excelsior Group. Mr. Bade stated that he is the development manager at Duke Realty. He presented the proposed site plan and indicated that they have completed an AUAR analysis to make sure the proposed use is in line with AUAR requirements; this analysis came in lower from a threshold standpoint in terms of water, sewer and traffic capacity. Mr. Culp presented an overview of his company and indicated that they own or have an ownership interest in approximately 1,200 units. The company also manages approximately 300,000 square feet of office and industrial space, both locally and in Wisconsin and Arizona. He stated that he believes this site is underserved for multi-family use and believes this project will ultimately be similar to the Ellipse project. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Mr. Krych stated that BKV has completed several projects in the Twin Cities similar to the proposed West End project, and they work hard to provide great outdoor spaces in their projects as well as a high quality project. Ms. Camp discussed the sustainable design features in their work including low impact landscaping native to Minnesota, terraced decks and courtyards. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern about the limited green space and limited areas for children. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with necessary zoning ordinance amendments to allow additional density at the West End development. Mr. Harmening stated that the City Council will receive a detailed presentation in July regarding affordable housing from an overall perspective and not just related to the West End project. It was the consensus of the City Council to table discussion regarding affordable housing in the West End project pending the Council’s discussion of this topic in July. Ms. McMonigal stated that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the zoning ordinance amendments in July or August. 4. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Mr. Olson presented the staff report. Mr. Olson advised that Phase 2 work has recently been concluded and Phase 3 work includes preliminary design and environmental assessment. He stated that the Project Management Team (PMT) has determined that Option 4 (Button Hook Ramp) is the preferred design for the interchange. He discussed the roundabouts and access to existing businesses. He stated that public meetings will be held in the coming months to provide stakeholders with an update on the project and to solicit feedback regarding the preferred concept. Councilmember Mavity requested information regarding how walkability and bikeability will be impacted in the area. Mr. Olson stated that Option 4 substantially improves pedestrian safety in the area. He added that the single roundabouts work well for bicycles. Councilmember Finkelstein requested an update regarding the project’s funding status. He stated that unless funding is received for the project, the City cannot complete this project. Mr. Rardin stated that grants have been applied for and staff has not heard anything regarding its grant requests. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Mr. Harmening stated that the City Council is not being asked to approve any additional spending at this time; the project will continue to be refined via environmental work as well as holding public meetings with residents and business owners. He added that Phase 3 work will be completed pursuant to Council’s direction. 5. Freight Rail Policy Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and two revised resolutions for Council’s review. Resolution Relating to Freight Rail Activity Councilmember Sanger requested that the resolution relating to freight rail activity be amended to add a paragraph 4(f) that states “Creation of a whistle-free zone throughout the rail corridor.” She also requested that paragraph 4(e) be revised to state “Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety barriers or fencing between the track and adjacent properties.” Councilmember Santa asked if the term “corridor” is a defined term used by the railroad and whether the City’s use of the term has any unintended consequences. Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about getting too specific in its conditions. Mr. Harmening suggested use of the words “safety measures” in place of safety barriers or fencing. The City Council agreed with this amendment. Mr. Harmening stated that staff will conduct additional research regarding the use of the term “corridor” and whether the term is a railroad-defined term that is contrary to Council’s use. Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the fourth whereas clause stating that St. Louis Park never consented to the realignment of freight rail traffic. She cited the position statement summary from 1999, adopted as part of the 2001 resolution, which states that “if at a future date it is determined that the Kenilworth Corridor is the most feasible route for mass transit and that they cannot coexist, freight rail traffic will be rerouted through St. Louis Park.” She stated that the City is not consenting to it unless this resolution is met. Councilmember Sanger stated that the City never consented to the realignment of freight rail traffic as evidenced in the task force recommendations and 2001 resolution. She felt strongly that this statement should be included in the proposed resolution so that it is clear to the Hennepin County Commissioners that the City never agreed to this. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that this clause be revised to state “the City of St. Louis Park does not wish to have the realignment of freight rail traffic through our community.” City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Councilmember Santa also suggested that this clause be revised to state “the City of St. Louis Park has always opposed the realignment of freight rail traffic through our community.” She stated that this is a true and factual statement that can be supported by the record. The City Council agreed with revising this clause to state “the City of St. Louis Park has always opposed the realignment of freight rail traffic through our community.” Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that the fifth “whereas” clause be revised to state “the City of St. Louis Park adopted the Railroad Task Force Recommendations of May 23, 2001 by Resolution No. 01-120, which included St. Louis Park’s opposition to the rerouting of freight rail.” The City Council agreed with this amendment. It was the consensus of the City Council to include a provision in the resolution for the creation of a whistle-free zone. Ms. McMonigal stated that paragraph 3 of this resolution will be amended to state “opposes the introduction of any additional rerouting of freight rail traffic through the City of St. Louis Park.” Resolution Requesting Hennepin County Reanalyze the Potential Routes It was the consensus of the City Council that the proposed amendments to this resolution were satisfactory. Councilmember Sanger stated that she was recently asked whether there was any potential interaction or implications of freight rail realignment on the issue of volatile organic compounds. Ms. McMonigal stated that the County has hired a firm to conduct this study as well as a formal environmental assessment. Mr. Harmening stated that the final resolutions will be placed on the City Council agenda for formal action on July 6th. Finalize City Council 2010 Workshop “Group Norms” Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated the group norms were discussed at the Council’s workshop in February. Ms. Gothberg presented the proposed group norms and requested Council’s comments. Councilmember Sanger indicated that she would like council to consider a norm that would indicate that at times, if context or facts changed, it is okay to put a previous decision back on the table. Councilmember Omodt said he disagreed with this. He said, once a decision is made, it is made and it is the council’s job to make it work. Mayor Jacobs said that norms were the rules the council abides by and that if context and facts changed so much, that something needed to be brought back to the table, that it would be evident to all and could be brought back by standard channels. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes June 28, 2010 Council members indicated that they could support the norms without a clause in it about bringing back previous decisions. It was the consensus of the City Council to adopt the Group Norms, as amended by Council. 6. Communications (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 7. Municipal Service Center (MSC) Renovation Project Update 8. May 2010 Monthly Financial Report 9. Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Project Report: 2010 MSA Street Rehab (Texas Avenue) - Project No. 2008-1100. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No. 2008-1100 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Project No. 2008-1100. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to adopt the resolution and proceed with this project? BACKGROUND: The Municipal State Aid (MSA) street system is a network of streets, designated by the City, which are eligible for funding from the state for periodic maintenance and reconstruction. MSA streets are typically those major streets which have higher volumes of traffic and are required to be constructed to a higher standard. During the past several years, staff identified the need to rehabilitate portions of the MSA street system through the City’s Pavement Management Program. The Pavement Management Program was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time. Using the City’s pavement management software, staff obtains street condition ratings and monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-effective treatments to extend pavement life. The MSA system is analyzed at the same time as the rest of the residential street network as part of the overall pavement management program. Rather than maintaining MSA streets on an area basis, like the residential street pavement management methodology, these streets are identified for repair or reconstruction based on their current condition. Through the Capital Improvement Program process, MSA projects are then programmed for major maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Subject: Project Report – 2010 MSA Street Rehab. (Texas Avenue) - Project 2008-1100 ANALYSIS: The following State Aid street segments identified for major maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction efforts in 2010 are: Street Start Point End Point Repair/Rehab. Type Wooddale Avenue W. 44th Street W. 42 ½ Street Mill and Overlay Texas Avenue Minnetonka Blvd. W. 28th Street Concrete Rehabilitation The Wooddale project was approved by City Council on April 5th this year. The Texas Avenue project involves rehabilitating the concrete pavement by repairing deteriorating joints and cracks, replacing sunken concrete panels, and diamond grinding the roadway surface. The Diamond grinding operation is the final step of the rehabilitation process where the surface of the roadway is ground smooth; thereby eliminating the bumps at each joint of the concrete panels. The result is a smoother and quieter driving surface. The project also includes minor repairs on the concrete curb and sidewalk, minor storm sewer repairs, and updates to the pedestrian curb ramps to meet current ADA standards. The project construction is anticipated to last about three to four weeks. The project will be constructed under traffic. Motorists will be guided through the work zone while crews work on half of the road at a time. The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for the Texas Avenue project. Because MSA funds will be used to pay for this project, it is necessary for Mn/DOT to review and approve the plans prior to construction. The plans are being reviewed by Mn/DOT and we anticipate final approval by the third week of July. Mn/DOT approval must be obtained prior to opening of bids to obtain MSA reimbursement for this work. PUBLIC PROCESS: Residents and property owners adjacent to the project were invited to an open house to review the plans for the proposed street construction work. The Open House was held on July 13, 2010. Staff met individually with the residents to discuss the timing of the project and what construction impacts would be felt by the residents while the project is underway. Prior to the start of construction, letters will be mailed to the adjacent property owners and tenants providing details of the work and project schedule. The City’s website will also provide information on the proposed project. Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule can be met: • Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council July 19, 2010 • Advertise for bids Late July/Early August 2010 • Bid Opening August 10, 2010 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract August 16, 2010 • Begin Construction Early September, 2010 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Subject: Project Report – 2010 MSA Street Rehab. (Texas Avenue) - Project 2008-1100 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program. The project will be funded by Municipal State Aid funds (gas tax monies). The estimated costs are as follows: Estimated Costs Construction Cost $174,028.50 Contingencies (10%) $ 17,402.85 Engineering & Administration (8%) $ 13,922.28 $205,353.63 Funding Sources Municipal State Aid Funds $205,353.63 VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: Resolution Map of Project Location Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Subject: Project Report – 2010 MSA Street Rehab. (Texas Avenue) - Project 2008-1100 RESOLUTION NO. 10-_______ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-1100 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 2008-1100 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the 2010 MSA Street Improvement Program. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2008-1100 is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2008-1100 is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said- approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Subject: Project Report - 2010 MSA Street Rehab. (Texas Avenue) - Project 2008-1100 Page 5 Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Liquor License Premises Amendment for Sauce Pizza & Wine. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve premises amendment to the on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license for Sauce West End LLC dba Sauce Pizza & Wine located at 1610 West End Boulevard. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the premises amendment for the liquor license at Sauce Pizza & Wine? BACKGROUND: Sauce Pizza & Wine located at 1610 West End Boulevard has made a request to the City of St. Louis Park for an amendment to their current on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license premises to add an additional outdoor patio dining area. The patio will include 7 additional tables which accommodates another 28 seats. All requirements have been met with Inspections Department. City Ordinance Section 3-68 (a) states each liquor license shall be issued only for the exact rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license. City Ordinance Section 3-106 states proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license. The applicant has met all requirements for a premises amendment to their current on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Final Payment for Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Contract 121-09. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $7,227.07 and accepting work for the 2009 reconstruction to the trail system, parking lots and basketball courts in Aquila Park with Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Project Nos. 20090040 and 20090210, City Contract No. 121-09. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: City Council approved and authorized the reconstruction of the trail system, parking lots and basketball courts in Aquila Park Project - City Project Nos. 20090040 & 20090210 which were advertised, bid and awarded to Midwest Asphalt Corporation on August 18, 2009 in the amount of $178,350. The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $178,350. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost for this project was accounted for in the Capital Park Improvement fund and received $100,000 from a special one-time CDBG allocation associated with federal recovery funds. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Assistant Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Final Payment for Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Contract 121-09 RESOLUTION NO. 10-______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,227.07 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM, PARKING LOTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS IN AQUILA PARK WITH MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION CITY PROJECT NOS. 20090040 & 20090210 CONTRACT NO. 121-09 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated August 18, 2009, Midwest Asphalt Corporation has satisfactorily completed reconstruction of the trail system, parking lots and basketball courts in Aquila park contract, as per Contract No. 121-09. 2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filled her recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $ 178,350.00 Change Orders .00 Contract Amount $ 178,350.00 Previous Payments 171,122.93 Balance Due $ 7,227.07 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Franchise Fee Audit Settlements for Comcast and Time Warner. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion to approve Time Warner Cable audit settlement of $3,339 and Comcast audit settlement of $1,542. After in depth review and discussion of the audit report, the Telecommunications Advisory Commission supports this recommended Council action. BACKGROUND: At their February 21, 2008 meeting, the Telecommunications Advisory Commission directed staff to prepare requests for proposal for a cable television franchise fee audit for 2005 through 2007, at the direction of City Council. The current franchise agreement allows the City to conduct periodic audits of the cable TV provider. Lewis & Associates conducted the audit, and the Commission reviewed the audit reports earlier in 2010. Following review and discussions with Time Warner and Comcast staff, Mr. Scott Lewis (of Lewis & Associates) has approved final Time Warner and Comcast documents and calculations for payments, including interest, as correct. City Controller Brian Swanson has discussed the audit with staff and reviewed the more detailed reports. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Acceptance of the audit reports and results of clarifications with Time Warner and Comcast would result in the City collecting $1,542 from Comcast and $3,339 from Time Warner for a total of $4,881 as a result of Lewis and Associates audits. The City paid $11,875 for the audit from the Cable TV Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: N/A Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Second Reading - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 3 Brewer’s Liquor Licensing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 3 of City Code concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing and approve the summary ordinance for publication; and to approve Resolution amending Resolution No. 09-157 adopting annual fees for Liquor licenses. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of the City Code concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licenses and establish a license fee? BACKGROUND: At the June 14, 2010 Study Session, a written report was submitted for council review regarding an ordinance amendment concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing. The required public hearing was held July 6, 2010 and the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment was approved. Jason Schoneman, resident of St. Louis Park and owner of Steel Toe Brewing, met with staff to discuss code requirements needed to start a very small craft brewery in St. Louis Park. Brewery manufacturers and wholesalers licensing is handled and issued by the State of Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. Mr. Schoneman is interested in selling malt liquor at the brewery for off-site consumption similar to Granite City Brewpub. Current ordinance allows “brewpub” off- sale malt liquor licenses to restaurants, but does not include language allowing issuance to “brewers” at a brewery. Breweries are allowed to locate in the City’s industrial zoning districts and must meet local standards and waste discharge rules of the Metropolitan Council and Pollution Control Agency. St. Louis Park does not currently have a full brewery and the proposed facility must also meet all State Construction Codes comparable to all buildings and uses. If the proposed brewery is allowed to sell their product, the City Inspections Department would be the licensing authority for a food/beverage license and responsible for the inspections due to the City delegation agreement with Minnesota Department of Agriculture. MN Statutes § 340A.301 subd. 7 allows the off-sale of malt beverages brewed on the premises of a licensed brewery to be produced and packaged only in 64 ounce containers (“growlers”) or bottles. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License Off-sale of brewer’s malt beverages may only be sold during the hours permitted by law for off-sale liquor stores. Recommendation Staff has been working with Attorney Roger Knutson of Campbell Knutson in amending the liquor ordinance to include language to allow brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licenses. The proposed amendments to Section 3-57 of the city ordinance code would allow this type of activity and assure the city is in compliance with state statute. • Attached ordinance Section 1 is new and relates directly to brewer’s off-sale licenses. • There is also a minor change in Section 2, relating to brewpub off-sale license allowing them to also use 750 milliliter bottles (same size allowed for brewer). • Staff is recommending a license fee of $200 for a “brewer’s” off-sale malt liquor license. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Ordinance Ordinance Summary Publication Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manger Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License ORDINANCE NO. _____-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING BREWER’S OFF-SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Section 3-57 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following provision: (13) Brewer off sale malt liquor license. A brewer who has a license from the Commissioner of Public Safety to brew 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year may with the approval of the Commissioner of Public Safety be issued a license by the City for off-sale of malt liquor subject to the following conditions: a. The malt liquor sold off-sale must be produced and packaged on the licensed premises. b. Off-sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off-sale pursuant to section 3-105. c. The malt liquor sold off-sale shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers commonly known as “growlers” or in 750 milliliter bottles and shall have the following requirements for packaging: 1) The containers or bottles shall bear a twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug. 2) At the time of sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall be applied to the container or bottle and extend over the top of the twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. 3) The adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor. 4) The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor, and the contents in the container packaged as required herein shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100. SECTION 2. Section 3-57 (12) (d) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (12) Brewpub off sale malt liquor license. A brew pub off-sale malt liquor license may be issued, with the approval of the commissioner, to a brewer who holds an on- sale intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued by the city for a restaurant operated in the place of manufacture, subject to the following conditions: City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License d. The malt liquor sold off-sale shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers commonly known as “growlers,” or in 750 milliliter bottles and shall have the following requirements for packaging: 1) The containers shall bear a twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug. 2) At the time of sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall be applied to the container and extend over the top of the twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. 3) The adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor. 4) The containers shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor, and the contents in the container packaged as required herein shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its publication. ENACTED this 19th day of July, 2010, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Public Hearing/First Reading July 6, 2010 Second Reading July 19, 2010 Date of Publication July 29, 2010 Date Ordinance takes effect August 13, 2010 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 5 Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _____-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING BREWER’S OFF-SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSES This ordinance amends the liquor licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park to comply with state statute liquor license laws and regulations regarding brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 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: July 29, 2010 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 6 Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License RESOLUTION NO. 10-____ RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 09-157 ADOPTING ANNUAL FEES FOR LIQUOR LICENSES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance authorizing brewer’s to sale off-sale malt beverages; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 09-157 is amended by adding the following fee: Liquor License Type: 2010 Fee Brewer off-sale Malt Liquor $200 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4f Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 2724 Toledo Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2724 Toledo Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 31-029-24-32-0065. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Marie R. Johnson, owner of the single family residence at 2724 Toledo Avenue South has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for her home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $3,919.10. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 2724 Toledo Ave RESOLUTION NO. 10-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 2724 TOLEDO AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 31-029-24-32-0065 WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 2724 Toledo Avenue South has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 2724 Toledo Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $3,919.10. 4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %. 6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4g Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Authorization to submit an application to Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for the designation of Transit Improvement Areas at the proposed Beltline, Wooddale, and Louisiana Transit station locations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for the designation of Transit Improvement Areas at the proposed Beltline, Wooddale, and Louisiana transit stations. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support applying for the designation of Transit Improvement Areas at the Beltline, Wooddale, and Louisiana transit stations. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) is accepting applications from local governments for the designation of Transit Improvement Areas (TIA). TIAs were created to designate land parcels near bus rapid transit, light rail transit and commuter rail stations. Upon designation, TIAs would be eligible to receive loans to help fund projects that increase the effectiveness of transit by incorporating commercial, residential, or mixed-use development and provide for safe, pedestrian-friendly use. Currently, there are no state funds available for TIAs. However, with the recent availability of federal funds targeted towards transit and sustainable communities, DEED has been requested to make designations with the intention of leveraging applications for other sources of funding. In 2009, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority completed a station area planning study for the proposed 12 stations of the Southwest Light Rail Transit line. Three stations are proposed in St. Louis Park: Beltline Blvd, Wooddale Ave and Louisiana Ave. Conceptual site development plans were created for the area within a half-mile radius of each station with the primary objective of looking at how development patterns and infrastructure will likely change near each station. Recommendations for transit supportive development were created for each station area and incorporated into the City’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. A map of the proposed line is attached. The City is seeking designation for a Transit Improvement Area at each of the proposed LRT stations in St. Louis Park. Separate applications have been completed for each. A resolution authorizing the submittal of all these applications is attached. Having the three station locations designated as a Transit Improvement Areas in and of itself carries no special obligation to the City City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Transit Improvement Area FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Designation as TIA could open the opportunity for grants or loans in the future. VISION CONSIDERATION: Applying for the proposed TIA designation supports the Strategic Directions of providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock as well as being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: Transit Improvement Area Resolution Map of the proposed transit line Prepared by: Julie Grove, Planning and Economic Development Assistant Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Subject: Transit Improvement Area RESOLUTION NO. 10-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT AREA APPLICATIONS FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED BELTLINE, WOODDALE AND LOUISIANA LRT STATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of transit in the Southwest corridor, and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development is accepting applications from local governments fro the designation of Transit Improvement Areas, with the intent to further eligibility for funding to increase transit effectiveness, and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, has an interest in increasing the effectiveness of transit for its citizens improving adjacent green space and public places, and maximizing the redevelopment potential of affected lands; and, WHEREAS, three future light-rail transit station have been identified in St. Louis Park along the Southwest LRT Corridor, at Beltline Boulevard, Wooddale Avenue S., and Louisiana Avenue; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority completed a preliminary station area planning study for the above named stations, indicating that future transit improvement may result in increased redevelopment opportunities. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby approves the Transit Improvement Area Designation application submitted to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) on July 16, 2010 for the Beltline, Wooddale and Louisiana Station Areas; and, Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 4 Subject: Transit Improvement Area Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4h Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Spending Plan enabling funding for Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Resolution approving a Spending Plan for Certain Tax Increment Financing Districts in the City and approving an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy. NOTE: This is a companion approval to the EDA action on the same topic earlier this evening. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the adoption of a Spending Plan that would enable the funding of the Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy? BACKGROUND: At the April 12, 2010 Study Session, staff reviewed several provisions within the recently enacted Minnesota Jobs Bill. One such provision in the Bill authorized that cash balances in existing TIF districts could be used to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities for a time limited period. In this case, construction would need to have started by July 1, 2011 with no expenses eligible for reimbursement after December 31, 2011. Staff noted that one local company was considering the relocation or expansion of its local operations and requested financial assistance to help it remain in St. Louis Park. Given the potential to assist a local company under the new law, there was consensus to consider the use of the cash balances within the city’s TIF districts as the funding source to help that company remain and expand in St. Louis Park. The EDA also requested that staff prepare criteria by which to consider this company’s and other companies’ requests for construction assistance. In response, staff prepared the proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy. The Policy was submitted for EDA review at the June 28th study session. No questions or comments were received by the EDA/City Council on the Policy In recent weeks, staff has been in discussion with two other local companies that could be potential applicants to the proposed Construction Assistance Program. One is a commercial/industrial property management company that is looking to make needed upgrades to one of its older buildings in order to secure new tenants. The other is a small industrial company that is in leased space and wishes to purchase a larger industrial building and make substantial renovations to it in order to facilitate its growing business. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy Proposed Construction Assistance Program Pursuant to the newly enacted Jobs Bill and the discussion at the April 12th Study Session, it is proposed that the EDA establish a simple, straight-forward, assistance program to avail the city of the state’s stimulus authorization. The purpose of the Construction Assistance Program is to spur the immediate construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or mixed use buildings within the city of St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new investment should result in a higher market value for the underlying commercial or industrial property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment. Ehlers & Associates has determined that, as of the end of this year, there would be a total of approximately $1.6 million in fund balances available between the EDA’s nine TIF districts. Of this amount $550,000 has been reserved for affordable housing initiatives leaving $1,050,000 available for Construction Assistance. It is proposed that the first $500,000 in Construction Assistance be reserved for the company that requested funding at the April 12th study session. Staff expects to hear shortly whether this company plans to formally request all or a portion of these funds. The remaining $550,000 would be made available through the Construction Assistance Program to assist other businesses construct building improvements within the city. No one business would be provided with more than $500,000 and funds would be available on a first-come/first-serve basis. The Construction Assistance Program would provide funding upon demonstrated need. A business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested assistance is warranted and necessary and without such assistance the project would be unable to proceed. Such assistance would be provided as a deferrable loan to reimburse up to a third (33%) of eligible project costs. Applications would only be considered for private construction projects requiring between $20,000 and $500,000 in Construction Assistance. (For example: a business wishes to upgrade its facilities and make it more energy efficient. The business has sworn construction statements reflecting a total project cost of $280,000. The business could apply for up to $92,400 in Construction Assistance.) If the subject building is held and properly maintained by the business and/or building owner for 5 years after project completion, the entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the subject property is sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding is provided. The attached Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application further outlines the program’s objectives, eligible & ineligible costs, timing, qualifications and application procedures. Required Approvals The EDA must hold public hearing regarding its proposed use of TIF fund balances after which it must adopt a written spending plan (attached) that specifically authorizes the assistance. Because the financial assistance provided under the proposed Program may constitute business subsidies under City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, the EDA’s Business Subsidy Policy should be amended to include the proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is proposed the City Council approve a Spending Plan that would allow the use of up to approximately $1.6 million in TIF district cash balances as the funding source for a short term Construction Assistance Program that would provide deferred loans of up to $500,000 to stimulate private construction activity within the city. VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development. Attachments: Resolution Spending Plan Business Subsidy Policy Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application (included in EDA packet) Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 4 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPENDING PLAN FOR CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Background; Findings. (a) The City and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) have previously established the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Elmwood Village, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Hoigaard Village Tax Increment Financing Districts (the “TIF Districts”) and adopted tax increment financing plans therefor (the “TIF Plans”). (b) Subject to the approval of the City Council following a public hearing, the Authority has adopted a spending plan for the TIF Districts in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m in substantially the form submitted to the City (the “Spending Plan”) to utilize existing tax increment revenues from the TIF Districts in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs. (c) The Authority has developed guidelines for evaluating requests for financial assistance in connection with the Spending Plan, which guidelines have been memorialized in a Construction Assistance Program Policy (the “Program Policy”). The Authority has adopted the Program Policy on the date hereof. (d) Financing offered by the City or Authority pursuant to the Spending Plan could constitute a business subsidy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended (the “Business Subsidy Act”), and therefore the City and Authority have prepared an amendment to the City’s Business Subsidy Policy (the “Amendment”) to authorize such financing. Subject to approval of the City Council following a public hearing, the Authority has adopted the Amendment on the date hereof. (e) The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the approval of the Spending Plan and the amended Business Subsidy Policy, including, but not limited to, causing notice of a public hearing to be published and holding public hearings on the date hereof on the adoption of the Spending Plan and amendment of the Business Subsidy Policy. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 5 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy Section 2. Approval of the Spending Plan and Amendment. (a) The Spending Plan for the TIF Districts and the Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy are hereby approved and adopted in substantially the form submitted to the City. (b) The Authority is hereby authorized to carry out the terms of the Spending Plan in such manner as it determines to be consistent with the Program Policy. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest Secretary City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 6 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy SPENDING PLAN FOR THE: VICTORIA PONDS PARK CENTER HOUSING CSM MILL CITY EDGEWOOD ELMWOOD VILLAGE WOLFE LAKE AQUILA COMMONS HOIGAARD VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS ADOPTED BY THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 19, 2010 ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 2010 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 7 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy SPENDING PLAN FOR THE VICTORIA PONDS, PARK CENTER HOUSING, CSM, MILL CITY, EDGEWOOD, ELMWOOD VILLAGE, WOLFE LAKE, AQUILA COMMONS, AND HOIGAARD VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS I. PURPOSE The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) administers the Tax Increment Financing Districts listed above (the “TIF Districts”) in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), and proposes to adopt a Spending Plan for the TIF Districts in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m. The purpose of the Spending Plan is to develop or redevelop sites, lands or areas within the City in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan by using available tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, which will create or retain jobs in this state. II. PLAN The Authority is authorized as follows: (a) To use available tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, and/or mixed- use buildings and ancillary facilities requiring a minimum of $20,000 and no more than $500,000 in financing assistance. Preference for financing assistance under this Spending Plan will be given to projects utilizing efficient urban design; quality architecture and materials; sustainable “green” design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater management; improved public safety; and decreased capital and operating costs to local government, as set forth in the Authority’s Construction Assistance Program Policy adopted on the date hereof. The construction or substantial rehabilitation of such facilities must commence before July 1, 2011 (unless otherwise authorized by law) and would not commence by such date without the assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan. (b) To amend the budget set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the TIF Districts as necessary to provide for the assistance authorized by this Spending Plan. (c) To take any other action necessary and authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m in connection with the construction or substantial rehabilitation of facilities of the type described in Clause (a) above. The assistance provided pursuant to this Plan may be subject to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Business Subsidy Law”), if applicable. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 8 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY As Amended July 19, 2010 1. PURPOSE Business subsidies are considered investments in the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and are meant to encourage desirable development and/or redevelopment that benefit the City. The purpose of this policy is to establish the City’s criteria relating to the provision of business subsidies for private development. This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. The City of St. Louis Park and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) maintain several policy documents which speak to the general goals and objectives for the provision of public assistance for private development or redevelopment activities. These documents include, but are not limited to: The Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, the Development Fund Policy, the Tax Increment Financing Policy, and the Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy. The further intent of this policy is to satisfy the requirements of the Business Subsidies Act (the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, as amended. Terms used in this Policy are intended to have the same meanings as if used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies granted under the Act if and to the extent required thereby. 2. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS The City and EDA’s ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established within the Act and every business subsidy is subject to the requirements set forth within the Act. 3. PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT All business subsidies must meet a public purpose as provided in Section 5 that may include, but must not be limited to, increasing the property tax base. All business subsidy recipients must enter into a business subsidy agreement with the City and EDA that complies with Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, subd. 3. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 9 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy 4. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY a. All business subsidies approved by the City and EDA should meet the criteria set forth herein. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any potential developer or the City or EDA. b. All proposed projects must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and ordinances must be under active consideration by the City at the time of approval. c. Potential recipients shall be required to provide such studies, reports, appraisals, information or other data as may be requested by the City and EDA prior to consideration of a request for business subsidy. d. Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be provided solely to broaden a developer’s profit margins on a project. e. All business subsidy requests shall meet the “but for” test or otherwise demonstrate why a business subsidy is necessary and serves a public purpose as described in this policy. The “but for” test means that the project would not develop solely on private investments in the reasonable future. The developer shall provide findings for the “but for” test. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the recipient must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the “but for” test. The potential recipient will be required to provide all documentation necessary to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. f. All projects requesting business subsidies will be evaluated to determine if their business assumptions are reasonable, their financial projections are sound and their proposed venture(s) are likely to be successful. 5. PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA a. Every business subsidy request will be evaluated according to the public purpose criteria specified below which shall apply to all potential recipients. • Support the expansion of businesses that have an environmentally sound track record and provide desirable goods and services. • Increase the community’s property tax base (e.g., generate a net increase in the amount of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment). • Create quality, new jobs (e.g., stable employment and/or attractive wages and benefits). • Retain quality, existing jobs (where job loss is specific and demonstrable). • Eliminate or prevent “substandard” or “blighted” areas. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 10 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy • Cleanup contaminated properties. • Reduce public health risks, safety concerns or criminal activity. • Promote revitalization or economic diversification of neighborhoods. • Develop/redevelop underutilized properties. • Stimulate additional investment or “spin-off” businesses and jobs in the area. • Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. The above list is not exclusive; the City and EDA will consider public purposes that otherwise meet their development and redevelopment goals. b. Except as provided in Section 6 below, each recipient of a business subsidy must create or retain a number of jobs to be specified in the business subsidy agreement. . There may be separate goals for the number of part-time jobs or full-time jobs. Preference will be provided to those projects that create and/or retain a significant number of quality jobs as defined above. In cases where the public purpose is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of the subsidy must demonstrate that job loss is specific and demonstrable. The setting of specific job goals will be sensitive to local economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resources of the recipient and the competitive environment in which the recipient’s business exists. c. Except as provided in Section 6 below, each recipient of a business subsidy must meet wage goals for the jobs created or retained. The goals will be specified in the business subsidy agreement. Preference will be provided to projects that create and/or retain stable jobs within the City that offer wages significantly higher than the Federal minimum wage and attractive benefits. In all cases, 90% of the jobs created or retained as a result of any business subsidy approved by the City and EDA must pay at least 110% of the Federal minimum wage for full-time and part-time employees 6. CRITERIA WHEN JOB CREATION/RETENTION IS NOT A GOAL The grantor may determine, after a public hearing, that job creation or job retention is not a goal of the business subsidy. In those cases, the recipient must meet at least one of the following minimum requirements: a. The proposed business subsidy must accomplish the removal, rehabilitation or redevelopment of, or prevention of development or spread of, a blighted area as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subd. 11, or must constitute a cost of correcting conditions that permits designation of a redevelopment district or renewal and renovation district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179; or b. The proposed business subsidy must improve public infrastructure or public facilities, including without limitation streets, sewers, storm sewers, streets, parks, recreational facilities, and other City facilities; or City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 11 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy c. The proposed business subsidy must remove physical impediments to development of land, including without limitation poor soils, bedrock conditions, steep slopes, or similar geotechnical problems. The above requirements must be expressed as specific, measurable and tangible goals in each business subsidy agreement. The job and wage goals that would otherwise be required may be set at zero. 7. FIVE YEAR RULE Each recipient of a business subsidy must agree to continue operation within the City for a minimum of five years after the benefit date. After a public hearing, the grantor may authorize the recipient to move outside the City within the five-year period. 8. OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES Each business subsidy will be evaluated against the criteria in this policy but also against other applicable City or EDA policies including, but not limited to, the Tax Increment Financing Policy, the Development Fund Policy, the Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, the Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy, and the Construction Assistance Program Policy. 9. FAILURE TO MEET SPECIFIED GOALS Each business subsidy agreement will require a recipient failing to meet the specified goals by the specified date to pay back the assistance plus interest to the grantor, or at the grantor’s request, to the account created under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.551. Any repayment may be prorated to reflect partial fulfillment of goals. The interest rate must be set at no less than the implicit deflator as defined by section 116J.994, subd. 6. The grantor may, after a public hearing, extend the period for meeting job and wage goals for up to one year. The grantor may extend the period for meeting any other goals for any period specified by the grantor, by documenting in writing the reason for the extension and filing that explanation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development along with the grantor’s next annual report on business subsidies. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 12 Subject: Construction Assistance Program and an Amendment to the Business Subsidy Policy 10. DEVIATION FROM POLICY When granting a business subsidy, the grantor may deviate from the criteria in this Policy by documenting in writing the reason for the deviation and filing that explanation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development along with the grantor’s next annual report on business subsidies. The grantor will not approve a deviation from these criteria unless the applicant provides a written request describing why the deviation is needed to permit the proposed project to proceed, and the grantor determines in its sole discretion that such deviation is reasonable and necessary. 11. COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Any subsidy granted by the City and EDA may be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the City and EDA. b. It will be necessary for both the recipient and the EDA to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. 12. RIGHT TO MODIFY POLICY The City and EDA reserve the right to modify this Policy from time to time in accordance with the procedures of the Act. Amendments to this Policy are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4i PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 16, 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, Larry Shapiro MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells, Tom Scott, City Attorney 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of May 19, 2010 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes of May 19, 2010. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 3. Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service – Dairy Queen Location: 5001 Excelsior Blvd. Applicant: DRF G&G, LLC Case No.: 10-18-CUP Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, described the conditional use permit process. Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the existing conditions for the use. The proposed site plans make predominantly one change to the site which is the addition of concrete medians to create a drive-through lane south of the building. He explained that the lot line of the proposed use is not located solely on the property, which is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The on-site parking requirement of 76 on-site spaces was an issue, through this proposal there would only be 16 spaces available. Mr. Fulton said no data was submitted to staff pertaining to shared parking agreements. There is an expectation of increased traffic and potential for conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians on the DQ site and adjacent sites. Mr. Fulton stated that one of the goals for this area in the Comprehensive Plan related to traffic and pedestrian movement. Staff’s review determined that this proposal was inconsistent with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended denial based on those issues. Mr. Fulton introduced Dave Anderson, Real Estate Representative, Frauenshuh Companies. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Commissioner Morris asked if the deficiencies in the application were pointed out to the applicant and if they had sufficient time to respond. Mr. Fulton replied the issues were brought forward to the applicant and there was some correspondence between the applicant’s attorney and the City Attorney. He said he was unsure why the applicant decided not to make changes recommended by staff. Commissioner Carper remarked it seemed to be for zoning conformance, as there was a statement in the code that said full compliance was necessary. He said he understood that to mean that the drive aisle has to be on their property, rather than someone else’s property. He asked if there were any mitigating circumstances that might allow them to use the other property and still be in compliance. Tom Scott, City Attorney, responded he couldn’t think of any circumstances allowing that. He said it was really a legal issue and based on the definition of lot and the provision in the code. He said the applicant may indicate there is common ownership between this parcel and the parcel that the drive-through would be located on. The legal requirement was clear and this wasn’t the kind of situation that could look to mitigating factors. Commissioner Robertson asked if there was a request for a parking variance. Mr. Fulton replied there was no application for a parking variance. Commissioner Robertson stated there were glaring problems and he asked why the application was considered complete. Mr. Fulton replied there were a number of reasons why the application was considered complete. The shared parking was an important issue. Staff addressed that issue with the applicant and noted that was an issue that would bar a recommendation of approval. No information was submitted related to the shared parking issue. Mr. Scott indicated the applicant had chosen not to submit information. It was not required information and they did not have a basis for deeming the application incomplete. The applicant had chosen to go forward without including a request for consideration of a reciprocal parking easement, which was their choice. They chose not to initiate a re-plat and move the lot line ten feet. Their application was not incomplete in the sense that any required information that they would require under the ordinance was not there. They chose to ask Planning Commission and City Council to consider it based on what they had submitted. Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting Group, traffic consultant, stated the purpose of the traffic study was to determine traffic impacts related to the proposed Dairy Queen drive through operations, as well as review the site access and circulation related to the proposed drive through and offer recommendation to mitigate any impacts if necessary. SRF reviewed the existing traffic operations for the current Dairy Queen as well as the adjacent uses of the site and adjacent roadway network. He summarized the study findings. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Commissioner Kramer asked for clarification on how the cars moving in and out shared the same driveway. Mr. Anderson described the access point proposed for the drive-through. He said the rear of the Baja Del Sol and Pannekoeken building in this location had some loading facilities in the rear. There was a potential that some vehicles could turn right there and use that driveway. That would result in a potential conflict, which was why they proposed making it a right-out only, with signage. Commissioner Kramer asked if the primary parking was beside the building or behind the building. Mr. Anderson replied based on their operation, the majority of the parking for Dairy Queen customers was to the west of the building and if that was unavailable, they would park in the rear of the building. Commissioner Carper asked about loading at the back of the adjacent buildings and customer parking. Mr. Anderson said he understood that deliveries for the adjacent building would occur outside of the peak use times for the drive-through; however that could potentially be an issue. He said the likelihood of that occurring might not be significant. Commissioner Carper asked if there was sufficient room between buildings for both customers and unloading. Mr. Vaughn, SRF, replied that based on his look at the space provided between the Dairy Queen eastern wall and the western wall of the adjacent building, there was approximately 30 feet. Due to some utilities in that space, there would be approximately 25 feet of width in that area. With the drive-through, it would leave 13 feet for a semi-truck, which could create the potential of conflict in that area, particularly when unloading goods. Dave Anderson, Real Estate Representative, Frauenshuh Companies, discussed the background of the business. A considerable amount of investment was put into the property. He stated that it isn’t a typical drive-through. This simplistic design does not work for most fast-food operators. It is an improvement to allow better customer service. Miracle Mile shopping center is comprised of four different parcels of property, all controlled and owned by one single entity. These contiguous parcels function in a cohesive manner. People come in and cross properties; they park on one property and cross to use the various businesses. There is a lot of interchange going on. There is not a lot of formality to that use. He went on to say that recently when the Hoigaard’s project was approved, they recognized the cohesiveness of the center, but didn’t require any acknowledgement or formalities to the agreements being discussed now and requiring the Dairy Queen to increase its parking count substantially. The parking works on this site today. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 4 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Mr. Anderson said that field observations show that contrary to some of the points made earlier, it is multiple parcels but one owner, and they can provide the private covenants and agreements to allow for the function between parcels. He said they understood there were additional requirements in terms of shared parking that need to be fleshed out, but they needed more specifics on what was required today. He said since parking works, they were not adding square footage or redeveloping the parcel, they were adding a simple improvement that would reduce the demand for parking on this parcel. Mr. Anderson stated that they were not creating anything that places a heavy and higher demand on the shared parking activities that occur on that site. Shared parking already happens on this site. Grill and Chill will adhere to the agreements and assure compliance with the conditional use permit. They are a daytime operation. The drive-through operations would be from 10 AM to 10 PM. The design was very simplistic and a modest adjustment to the site. They take out some parking, but less parking is required because of the operation. Mr. Anderson concluded by saying the applicant will meet the requirements of the code that permits in-vehicle service through a conditional use permit. Nick Spiredes, Spiredes Reiners Architects, reviewed the Grill and Chill layout from an aerial photograph and discussed the drive aisle and parking. Mr. Morris asked if the property owner agreed to the changes in the driveway easement. Mr. Anderson stated he had a letter from InterCity Investments explaining the conversations they were having about providing the private agreements for ingress, egress and parking. The letter was given to the Chair for the record. Jim Benshoof, Benshoof and Associates, traffic engineering consultant for applicant spoke about three issues raised in the staff report: 1) internal circulation; 2) potential U-turns on Excelsior Blvd; and, 3) parking. Chair Person asked for copies of the materials from Mr. Benshoof. The Commission recessed for 5 minutes to allow for copying of the document. Commissioner Carper asked about the delivery trucks and the proximity of the drive aisle. Mr. Benshoof agreed with Mr. Vaughn’s comments, according to the site plan, there is just over 30 feet total between the building walls. There is a sidewalk, reducing it to about 25 feet. The drive-through operations vehicles would be using 10-12 feet, which would leave approximately 13-15 feet, which he felt was sufficient for passage of any vehicle. It was wider than a standard traffic lane that was twelve feet wide. It would not be large enough for the angling of a truck. Passage would be OK. Commissioner Carper and Mr. Benshoof spoke about delivery trucks and the drive aisle. Commissioner Carper asked how deliveries were made to the business. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 5 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Jill Carlson, Director of Operations, Fourteen Foods, replied all deliveries are done in the morning prior to opening along the drive-through area or in the back where the parking would start for employee parking. The entrance where food is delivered is at the back of the building. Deliveries are not accepted after 11:00 a.m. Commissioner Carper asked why they decided on a curved drive aisle rather than straight-in drive aisle from the south. Mr. Spiredes responded they were trying to minimize the impact and dimension from any stacking to the neighborhood to the south and make it as compact as possible, while meeting the requirements of the drive-through component of the code. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the CUP stayed with the property. Mr. Fulton replied that was correct, the CUP goes with the land. It would be a drive- through for a fast food restaurant, subject to conditions approved by the City Council. Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, the attorney representing the applicant, stated he wished to address the lot issue. They looked at the City Code, and asked if the access drive along the building on the lot that was owned by the landlord was prohibited by City Code, and it was not. They met with staff and the City Attorney and understood an alternative to that would be to re-plat the entire center. They looked at that and talked to the landlord. That would involve everybody who has a legal interest in the property. They put this in the context of trying to cut a window in the building to provide drive-through service. They were trying to improve the business viability of this property by adding a drive-through. They needed to balance the idea of platting a property that had never been platted before, all of the easement and legal interest issues and they took the path of least resistance, which was to provide an access drive. Mr. Griffith said he and the City Attorney had a differing opinion. He cited the following from City Code: “no land use is permitted or permissible on a parcel unless it can be located thereon in full compliance with all of the standards and regulations of this chapter.” He said if that one line in the City Code prohibited access drives as they were proposing, then literally hundreds of properties that shared access would be prohibited and he didn’t believe they could read it that narrowly. If ultimately they can solve the other issues regarding pedestrian safety and traffic and parking, which he believed they could, then he thought they could also address the easement issue. They had a landlord that was willing to cooperate. He said the next point regarded stacking and he believed that was met. They had heard from Mr. Benshoof and Mr. Vaughn and traffic operations were acceptable. They firmly believed that putting in a drive-through window was an opportunity to provide better definition for the safety of customers and for pedestrians and others using the Miracle Mile Center. Striping will be provided to slow vehicles down and show pedestrians where they cross. U- turns can be safely accommodated at Quentin Avenue. He said putting a drive-through window in a Dairy Queen is not a redevelopment. The objective to provide for pedestrian safety and minimize conflicts was a good one. He believed they demonstrated that this City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 6 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 application provides that opportunity to do some modest enhancements to eliminate some of the conflicts that already occur on-site. With regard to the general CUP requirements, if they provide a shared parking agreement they could address the parking. If they can provide an easement for access, all of the improvements on the site are located within the lot, the only thing that is off the lot, is the line that provides for access around the building, something that occurs on properties all over St. Louis Park. All of those things can be done by reasonable conditions attached to the conditional use permit. Mr. Griffith said they strongly believe this is in compliance with the City Code. Commissioner Morris asked why the applicant didn’t respond to the City in writing instead of giving an oral presentation at the last moment. Mr. Griffith replied they responded in writing to the City Attorney describing their position. He provided a written response. It was their opportunity at the public hearing to make it record. They will continue to communicate throughout the process. Chair Person opened the public hearing. Rose Doherty, 4968 W. 40th, indicated traffic was a problem on Excelsior Blvd. and the surrounding streets. During peak hours, the Miracle Mile parking lot and Excelsior Blvd. is at a stand still. Cars exiting Dairy Queen would have a difficult time getting into the left turn lane on Quentin. People will take a right on Quentin because of this. People parking in the Miracle Mile parking lot would have a difficult time crossing to the Dairy Queen entrance. Ms. Doherty said she would like the Commission to consider whether a drive through promotes a walkable community. Streets behind Miracle Mile would be greatly affected. There are no sidewalks on 40th and it is used by pedestrians. Ms. Doherty also wanted the Commission to consider if they granted the CUP, it would set a precedent for Excelsior Blvd. She didn’t want to hear car radios and people ordering through a drive through at her home or people throwing garbage over her fence. Groups already gather in the parking lot behind her house and she didn’t want to encourage more of the same. She didn’t understand why it was the neighborhood’s responsibility to see that Dairy Queen was profitable. She concluded by saying that in 2003 Dairy Queen knew the neighborhood was not in favor of a drive-through when Wendy’s went through the process. A lot of the same issues with the Wendy’s application are still the same today. Traffic and parking is worse. Ms. Doherty urged the Commission to vote against the CUP request. Bill Gleason, 2825 Kentucky, said he is part of a family business in St. Louis Park and is also a resident. He stated they have a fundraising partnership with Little League. He is part of a family business in St. Louis Park and is also a resident. One of the things they needed to look at was if this was a viable business, was good for the community and did it provide jobs. He said he coaches baseball and hockey and has taken kids to the Dairy Queen after school events. It is a good gathering place. He stated he had never seen a bad crowd at Diary Queen. They were giving to the community and were helping out. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 7 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Eric Bargman, 4305 W. 38th St, expressed concerns about safety. He said while it was a low volume of cars, with a drive-through, speed was of the essence. People are distracted, moving quickly and pulling out from the drive-through. While individuals may be able to get over, during rush hour it would be very difficult to make the U-Turns, and they would be moving to other areas. He said he struggled with this from the basic perspective of the broader development plan for the region in terms of building a pedestrian friendly area and the idea of the Excelsior and Grand development having higher end restaurants and moving in fast food restaurants right across the street. He couldn’t see that benefitting the Excelsior and Grand development. Rob Page, 3750 Huntington, said he didn’t see issues with the U-turns discussed. Regarding walkability, he said cars would only be going 3 m.p.h. A speed bump could be installed to alleviate neighborhood concern. He said in terms of noise, the speakers face east and it was almost 200 feet from houses, so he didn’t think people would hear noise from their yards very much. Mr. Page said regarding precedence, there weren’t too many lots that would have a 100 ft. setback, which was required for a drive-through. He said it was a wonderful building and people should be careful what they wish for because if Dairy Queen leaves they don’t know what would come in. It could be better, but it could be something much worse for the neighborhood. Chair Person acknowledged all emails, letters and phone calls that had been received and asked that they be included in the record. Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Chair Kramer asked how this was different from Wendy’s request which was turned down and why this could be approved. Mr. Fulton replied that every application is distinct. In this case, although it is the same site, the Wendy’s proposal was to remove what had previously been the Sage Hen Restaurant building, put in a new building and drive-through. Because that would have been a complete redevelopment of the site, it would have had to come into complete compliance with the zoning ordinance. That was denied by City Council. Dairy Queen renovated the existing restaurant building, so there were still some of the non-conformities. He said it is a very distinct proposal from the Wendy’s proposal, particularly related to the lot line issue. Commissioner Morris stated the Commission has a long standing policy to receive staff reports the Friday before the meeting. He said when an applicant comes to a meeting and presents graphs, statistics, and expert testimony, it was extremely difficult to follow, to take notes, to read, and photocopy documents that had just been handed to them. Normally under those circumstances the request would just be held over and tabled to the next meeting in order to have time to consider what had just been presented. He said normally he would recommend tabling, but the City Attorney had laid out specific conditions that were not being met. They were talking about violations to the zoning code and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He didn’t see them specifically address the violation other than that they disagreed with City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 8 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 it. Commissioner Morris said he didn’t think it was necessary to continue to get more information. He thought the staff presentation and City Attorney comments were clear enough for him to decide. Commissioner Robertson noted his first question to staff was if this application was incomplete. This was not just an access aisle, it was being used as part of the operation of the building. If there was a door swinging over the property line, they would need an encroachment permit. The property line is the property line even though it was a separate lot and it is owned by the same people until they had a written agreement saying that there was a shared use, the same with the parking. He said he wanted to see the agreement. He believed it was premature. He was not in opposition to the overall concept. There were some safety issues, but this was an urban setting with traffic and pedestrians. He said he did not think they could legally approve this. There were too many unmet criteria and he felt there was no reason to continue. Commissioner Carper believed there were pros and cons, however he would vote no because of the ordinance that says no land use is permitted on another parcel. The second reason was because of the off-street parking requirement. He said the applicant had plenty of time to postpone this while they got the shared requirement. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she supported the City Attorney and staff in their observations and supported the report as written and would vote for denial. She believed there were a lot more traffic issues than were being discussed. She said anyone who lives, works and shops in this area knew the real traffic issues in the area. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. B. Amendment to Special Permit for U-Haul Rental Facility Location: 8951 36th St. West Applicant: J.J. Beske Holdings, LLC Case No.: 10-16-SP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Mr. Morrison noted staff was concerned about vehicle storage. The concern was discussed with the applicant and also U-Haul. The end result was a letter from U-Haul stating that U- Haul had the ability to manage the flow of vehicles and equipment and would do so in accordance with any requirements or restrictions outlined from the City. It also indicated that the operator has the ability to refuse vehicles. If the site was at the limit and a vehicle came in for drop off, the operator could refuse it. The letter also admitted that there would be times when the site was not in compliance and they would work to get it into compliance quickly. Mr. Morrison said staff was concerned this would become an issue, as had been their experience at another U-Haul site and Budget rental. The expectation would be that the number of vehicles stored would not maximize the storage area. A surplus area would be kept City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 9 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 available in the designated storage area, so when they experience more traffic than normal the surplus area could absorb it. The rest of the property cannot be used for overflow parking. Commissioner Robertson said he liked to think that the conditions would be met, but if there were issues, was there a way to back track the decision? Mr. Morrison replied any special permit or conditional use permit can be reviewed by the City at any time. There is a process for reviewing, amending or revoking a special permit. The city does not need to put a condition in the permit to initiate that process. Commissioner Person asked why the use was allowed to continue when there were earlier violations. Mr. Morrison provided background on the use which led to the applicant requesting an amendment to the special permit. Commissioner Kramer asked Mr. Scott about the fines of $750/day for non-compliance. Mr. Scott replied it was an administrative fine provision in the code. He didn’t think it had been invoked very often. It was an administrative penalty that could be imposed. If there was a continued violation, it could be a substantial potential penalty to the applicant. If there were continuing violations, the real remedy would be to revoke the special use permit. Commissioner Morris asked how many times a violation would be sustained before the special permit was revoked. Mr. Morrison replied the violations would have to be significant enough to convince the Council to revoke the permit. It would take more than a few times. With regards to issuing fines, there is a pretty low tolerance level. Managing compliance is time consuming. If it turned into an on-going matter, there are a couple of options. One is to revoke the special permit; the other would be to file a complaint to district court for the code violation. Commissioner Kramer asked staff to discuss the letter received regarding shared use of parking. Mr. Morrison replied the concern was that the owner of the Knollwood Village shopping center had an agreement, a parking and access easement over a portion of the Beske parcel. The concern was expressed that the U-Haul operation impeded on that easement. It is a private agreement between the two property owners, and does not involve this application. Jennifer Beske, applicant, stated the Park N Wash Car Wash had served the city since 1982. They worked hard to partner with City staff to make sure they met the conditions required by the City Code for the amendment to the special permit. They had a lot of discussions with staff and they worked to come to a solution. They did their due diligence once they were made aware of the requirements, by hiring an architect who studied the codes and provisions to draw the plans. They had also worked with senior members of U-Haul to ensure they were respectful citizens in compliance with the permit provisions and to manage City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 10 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 the area talked about. Ms. Beske said they were excited about serving the citizens of St. Louis Park. This is a key site and a key need. Commissioner Kramer asked why, during this time of consideration, vehicles continued to be parked along the boulevard. He said he had seen car dollies, trailers, and even recently a boat and other vehicles. Jeff Beske replied the building was unique. In 1982 there was someone living there who had a boat and that was where they were parking it. It was not their intent to be “in their face.” There had been no discussion about having them move their boat somewhere else. They have an excess amount of parking stalls; they were putting them all in the same area (91 spaces) where they would only park the U-Haul vehicles. Mark Marquart, Inventory Control Manager for U-Haul of Minnesota, said that tools were in place to have the ability to use transfer drivers to move the equipment if necessary. Their primary goal was through the setting of rates and the use of customers to move the equipment in and out. There aren’t a specific number of pieces of equipment per lot. It changes based on customer demand. Commissioner Morris referenced a letter from the Urban Park Apartments to the west of the property regarding noise. He asked about hours of operation. Mr. Beske replied hours are from 8-5. The car wash is open 24 hours/day. Commissioner Morris noted the concern was specifically about noise of trucks, doors and engines starting. Chair Person opened the public hearing. Peter Tiede, Attorney representing Gator Investments, distributed a letter containing information that had been previously been submitted by his client William Goldsmith. From their perspective this was a matter in process because facts were developing. The said Knollwood Mall was negatively impacted because of potential rent issues. It was a serious concern for the neighbors and not a small matter. He said the applicant started a lawsuit on June 16, 2010 against the Beske’s. They were seeking injunctive relief to stop them from using the parking area. Mr. Tiede said he was confident if the request is granted by the City Council, the City would be part of the lawsuit. The first key issue for their client was the joint access that was mentioned. The property was subject to a cross easement agreement. Both parties were owners of that. It was their view that this proposed use violated that. In this situation, their client had not consented to this, vehemently opposed it, the island that was to be put in their according to staff would cut spaces further and that was the essential basis of the lawsuit. He referenced the agreement dated December 22, 1976. Paragraph three of that agreement states that each parcel is benefited by and subject to covenencies with restrictions in other provisions of the agreement. Target Company is a party to that. It says, “Target, Beske and Gator each confirm and grant to each other perpetual non exclusive City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 11 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 easements for access and parking over those portions of the common area located on the respective parcel, which would be for the sole benefit of the parcel owned by the other parties hereto in their respective lessees, occupants and business invitees.” Paragraph five of the agreement states that “Target, Beske and Gator each agree to repair and maintain the common areas in accordance with the standard of maintenance provided in the agreement and in accordance with the standards of first class shopping centers in Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area.” He said to maintain a U-Haul inventory on the property was consistent with a first class shopping center. This was a perpetual, non-exclusive easement and it was being violated. The easement agreement as set forth talks about how the parties of the agreement are supposed to agree on any regulation of how that area is to be used. He said his client just heard for the first time that the City is going to require certain signage in that area and a parking median. The City is regulating that parking area which was contrary to their client’s position. Beske does not have the sole and exclusive right to unilaterally use the entire Beske parcel for its sole and exclusive parking of inventory. Mr. Tiede said it was his client’s view that the City lacks the jurisdiction to grant this application at this point because they didn’t have a request from everyone who had an interest in the property. Mr. Tiede said the applicant requested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that this application be denied. Commissioner Morris asked if there was a reason Mr. Tiede had to present a 30 page document to the Commission in the last five minutes of the meeting. Mr. Tiede replied most of the comments were presented in the earlier submission for Mr. Goldsmith. They requested more time to get this ready before the meeting. His client was trying to react to the time line. The City is governed by the 60-day rule and his client is moving as fast as possible. Ms. Beske stated the information just presented was a civil matter and not part of their special permit request. She felt there were numerous inaccuracies, but that was not relevant to this discussion. She said they would discuss that legal matter separately. Ms. Beske said they had met the requirements for this approval. Chair Person acknowledged correspondence to be entered into the public record. Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Scott to comment. Mr. Scott replied that the dispute that had just been discussed as to whether or not this reciprocal easement agreement would prevent the applicant from doing what they were requesting approval for, was a private civil matter between the two parties. It was not something the Commission would consider. He went on to say that the ordinance requires that the owner join in any application. They didn’t require that easement holders, mortgage companies or that everyone who has any sort of interest in the property join in an City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 12 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 application. There was no requirement that anyone other than the fee owner join in the application and the applicant had compliance with that requirement. Commissioner Robertson said his take on the easement was that it was irrelevant to the Planning Commission and the planning and zoning of St. Louis Park. He stated he had no problems with the application and he would support it. Commissioner Morris stated the issue was clear. The applicant had made some miscues and missteps. It was a new business. The applicant knew what they were expected to do. He said the staff recommendation was the best course. He spoke about the provision for fines and revocation of the special permit. Commissioner Kramer spoke about a lack of history from the St. Louis Park to revoke a conditional use permit and its hesitancy to pursue fines. He said it made him nervous that even if the City set up rules and regulations, it would be business as usual. He stated he was in favor of the use, but not in favor of the applicant doing whatever they want, whenever they want. He said the letter from U-Haul was fine when it worked, but he was guessing that the person who wrote it was not an officer of the company and not authorized to engage in that sort of promise. Commissioner Morris commented that the Commission’s role was not to enforce, their role was to determine whether something complied with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, listen to the staff recommendation and once they passed it on, it was a City businesses issue of enforcing the code. Commissioner Carper said he was concerned about the past performance of the applicant. They have the right to operate this type of business. They had been put on notice that revocation was a possibility if they continued some of the previous behaviors that were unacceptable. He encouraged them to be a good neighbor and operate their business in a good manner for the community. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was confident staff would take action against non- compliance. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the Special Permit, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-1. (Kramer opposed) C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Election Signs Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 10-19-ZA Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and recommended approval to be in compliance with State law. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 13 Subject: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2010 Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the draft zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to political signs. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 4. Other Business - None 5. Communications Commissioner Morris commented about email and open meeting policies. Recently Commissioner Johnston-Madison recommended that the Planning Commission and City staff review C-2 zoning setbacks throughout the City for drive-throughs in commercial areas that back up to single family homes to determine if the setback was adequate. She asked if others would be interested in discussing setbacks for Planning Commission study session. Commissioner Morris replied he was willing to discuss setbacks. He asked if Commissioner Johnston-Madison was going to bring up points regarding deficiency or changes in the ordinance. Commissioner Johnston-Madison replied she was interested in discussing both deficiencies and changes. Commissioner Robertson stated there were a number of things they could address at a study session, including cluster housing. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4j Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Vendor Claims. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period July 3, 2010 through July 16, 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 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 14.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC 14.40 1,744.18PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION 1,744.18 379.41SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC 379.41 1,677.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYACTION FLEET INC 1,677.59 283.97CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEALEX AUDIO & VIDEO 283.97 87.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER 144.72PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 88.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 130.78ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.62VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 96.03WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 96.03SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 16.02STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 755.82 1,365,849.56CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMES CONSTRUCTION 1,365,849.56 13.48-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSANDERSON BUSINESS PRODUCTS 209.48TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES 196.00 112.46BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESARMCOM DISTRIBUTING CO 112.46 270.44WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC 270.44 65.79PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE 65.79 664.22BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMANS City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 664.22 54.63NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARKER, HANNA 54.63 49.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS 49.15 350.00SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT 350.00 80.00SUMMER THEATER ARTS CAMP PROGRAM REVENUEBEARD, WENDY 80.00 344.86ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS 344.86 320.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBENSON, BRAD 320.00 61.52WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBERQUIST, SUZANN 61.52 8,445.91WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF 8,445.91 231.08WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBLOOMQUIST, CYNTHIA 231.08 2,461.71ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBROCK WHITE CO LLC 2,461.71 103.13-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBROOKSIDE MOBILE 1,603.13VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,500.00 129.38NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN 129.38 11.76POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBURR, SUSAN 11.76 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 6,504.43ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC 284.25EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES 210.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 301.00RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 7,299.68 3,990.53IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE 3,990.53 7,022.16TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC 7,022.16 541.97FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY 519.22PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 29.44WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS 44.14NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS 2,200.90WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 53.56REILLY G & A HEATING GAS 125.24SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 3,514.47 96.54ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK 135.50ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 162.67ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 18.19-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 65.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 282.84BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 5.11SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 729.47 30.95-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCLEARR CORP 481.19ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 450.24 2,940.77CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO 2,940.77 17,097.70ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES 17,097.70 9,579.50EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION SUB HENNEPIN 9,579.50 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 4Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 8,240.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC 8,240.00 2,490.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOURT SURFACES & REPAIR 2,490.00 250.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB 250.00 106.20NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, COLIN 106.20 52.00SUMMER PRE/K PROGRAM REVENUECRANBROOK, KATHERYN 52.00 122.90SSD 1 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALSCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES 3,201.98SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,573.20SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.51SSD 3 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,539.35SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 666.90SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,127.84 10,953.71WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 10,953.71 15,640.04GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV 8,359.80EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT 23,999.84 3,906.50INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY 3,906.50 510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEDEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 510.00 231.10ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC 231.10 1,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC 1,000.00 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 5Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,600.51SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC 1,600.51 20.85NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDONOVAN, WILL 20.85 194.91-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDOUGLAS 3,029.91PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,835.00 96.88BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSDUNDEE NURSERY 96.88 67.50GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEEDINA SURGE 67.50 175.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC 175.00 95.26WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEGGERT, WILLIAM 95.26 38.41INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGELDER-JONES BUILDING PERMIT SE 38.41 51,502.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYELK RIVER CHRYSLER INC 51,502.40 73.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELLIS, ALEX 73.86 245.66NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN 245.66 208.09OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS 208.09 300.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENCORE BROKERS 300.00 189.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 6Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 189.94 164.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 164.10 614.56BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC 614.56 144.34REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFASHINGBAUER, CLAUDIA 144.34 28.16POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX 899.88SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 928.04 389.55ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS 389.55 331.38ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUEFIDLER, MIKE 331.38 2,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWFISHER, PETER 2,000.00 5.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC 5.59 63.53WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFRANZ, PATRICIA 63.53 10,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIENDS OF THE ARTS 10,000.00 36.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEFRIES, MEGHAN 36.00 63.58REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFUNDINGSLAND, ROBERT 63.58 6,169.10SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGENE'S WATER & SEWER INC. 6,169.10 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 7Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 75.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL PARTS INC 75.00 102.60WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW 102.60 371.98GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO 371.98 471.33WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS 471.33 2,390.62GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTGROVES ACADEMY 2,390.62 125.65REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRUSSING, KATHERINE 125.65 343.75SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE 343.75 83.13REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAUCK, ROBERT 83.13 5,717.28AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC 5,717.28 442.55IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH 442.55 410.52PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 410.52 654.08MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHENRICKSEN PSG 654.08 13,145.25TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO 13,145.25 612.60WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC 612.60 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 8Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 4,380.81PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC 4,380.81 204.77NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHILLEREN, CURTIS 204.77 85.00PICNIC SHELTERS RENT REVENUEHILMAS, RACHEL 85.00 144.09PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHOIGAARDS 144.09 32.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOITOMT, JANET 32.00 2.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 50.32TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 142.41BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 195.08 2.66GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE 12.74ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.78PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES 238.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.53TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.10WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 275.96WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 30.91SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.69SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 16.67STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.31STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 705.09 97.50ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK 97.50 119.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOULE, RYAN 119.11 50.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY 275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.00 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 9Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE 50.00 117.92SUMMER GRADE 4-5 GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 117.92 21,200.00ESCROWSGENERALHSSLP LLC 21,200.00 45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIATN 45.00 209.94INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESICC 209.94 174.70WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIINDELCO 174.70 267.19PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO 267.19 73.49ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN 61.14POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 134.63 18.73SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE 18.73 277,495.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC 277,495.00 1,056.00YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC 1,056.00 31,230.44GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKKE ARCHITECTS INC 31,230.44 3,500.00LIVE WHERE YOU WORK PRGM ADMINISTRATION FEESKNOTZ, CHAD & REBECCA 3,500.00 70.38REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKOESTNER, FRED & DAWN City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 10Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 70.38 67.61PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP 4.35-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 63.26 38.86PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO 38.86PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.30 22.81SYSTEM REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO 22.81 6,852.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 6,852.00 26.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE 26.00 58.72WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLENHART, ROWENA 58.72 69.20REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEPAGE, MARY 69.20 1,209.05EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONLEWIS, DON 1,209.05 32.50POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXIS NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC 32.50 62.90OPERATIONSFIRE ALARM & SPRINKLERLIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS 62.90 2,000.00IT G & A TRAININGLIFESHINE COACHING AND CONSULT 1,500.00IT G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 3,500.00 55.03-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSLIGHTING PLASTICS OF MN INC 855.43BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 800.40 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 11Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWLONDER, JASON & ARYEL 750.00 22.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMATSON, JOEL 22.24 80.44CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS 16.01ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 24.47PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.76WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.78WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5.98SUMMER GRADE 4-5 GENERAL SUPPLIES 194.44 1,666.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO BLOOMS 1,666.50 564.10OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC 564.10 39,501.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL 303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 343,184.28 91.17WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMICRO CENTER 91.17 2,475.06SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 8,676.95PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 11,152.01 3,367.56WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC 3,367.56 96.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR 96.00 47.45PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY 47.45 955.78SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 12Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 955.78 2,478.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMRPA 2,478.00 198.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO 198.83 265.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES 265.00 694.05NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNAMTVEDT, KIRI 694.05 100.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) 20.40SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.94 220.59REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNORRGARD, ALDON 220.59 48.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUENOWAK, JENNIFER 48.00 500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL 500.00 194.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE 194.80 70.91ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT 106.45SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8.13GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 121.25ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 267.32WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.87WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 589.93 48.09SEASONAL SUPERVISOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION 2,198.71PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 13Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 106.88WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 68.71NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,507.89 756.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONPARKER, JON 756.00 64.86NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPENFIELD, LYNETTE 64.86 12.97POLICE G & A TRAININGPETTY CASH 5.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 17.97 8.80IT G & A POSTAGEPETTY CASH - WWNC 17.75SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.89WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.24FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.69YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.11JUNIOR NATURALISTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.51SUMMER GRADE 2-3 GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.99 347.34WEED CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC 347.34 436.38PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO 436.38 820.54PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESPLAISTED COMPANIES INC 820.54 1,950.55WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT 1,950.55 63.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEPLAYWORKS 63.00 172.25INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA 172.25 124.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 14Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 124.25 362.42PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM 362.42 297.45WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603 4,000.00WATER UTILITY G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 297.45SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 297.45SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 297.46STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 5,189.81 123.90STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 123.90 219.66REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRANGE, DAVID 219.66 1,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRECISION FIRE SPRINKLER INC 1,500.00 112.22TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE 112.22 256.43PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPRECISION MOUNTING TECHNOLOGIE 16.50-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 239.93 126.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC 126.00 6,218.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I 6,218.00 150.13VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER 150.13 70.99IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST 104.80COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE 175.79 70.38REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREKDAHL, GARY City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 15Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 70.38 9,144.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES 9,144.38 80.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEROG, MARGARET 80.00 80.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEROSSITER, COLLEEN 80.00 134.85OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB 9.98OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 423.82ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.33ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 47.05PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES 180.40PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 32.03WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,272.55CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES 5,124.01 143.75PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSAMARITAN TIRE CO 143.75 199.59WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSATRE, CHAD 199.59 93.60WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSCHACHTER, DAVID 93.60 48.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESSEARS COMMERCIAL ONE 48.88 757.50PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH 1,434.64SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,192.14 2,434.88PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO 2,434.88 78.06REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIGEL, DELORES 78.06 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 16Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 67.33GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC 67.33 41.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIMMONS, DENISE 41.00 8,925.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESL-SERCO 8,925.00 45.40PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC 59.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 252.64WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 357.04 3,826.58PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 3,826.58 3,871.01AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO 2,050.13PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 394.10UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 6,315.24 30.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEST DAVID'S ADVENTURE 30.00 25.81WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTARK, JONATHON 25.81 965.48WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIESSTRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C 103.20CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES 1,068.68 436.61POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S 161.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 598.52 157.30ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS 89.38PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL NOTICES 246.68 60.25REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTARNOWSKI, ELIZABETH City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 17Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 60.25 65.79ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC 65.79 35.02WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTENENHOLTZ, JUDYTH 35.02 99.63VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO 99.63 97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT 97.00 7,900.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC 7,900.00 45.26ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN 53.29HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 15.84COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 41.70IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.98ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 64.80FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 112.56COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 121.05POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 76.83OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY 57.81INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 43.61PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 56.83ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 20.48PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 68.74ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 20.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.08ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.08WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 18.05REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 16.59HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 20.48WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 1,868.45EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 2,794.55 68.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 18Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 68.00 702.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 702.85 722.50ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 722.50 597.24SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA 597.24 125.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, JOHN 125.00 177.01GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640 177.01 794.82TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTUHL CO INC 794.82 92.94OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE) 92.94 1,890.86POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD) 1,277.96SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 893.15SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 159.95COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 4,221.92 3,820.79TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE 3,820.79 557.92OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC 31.13WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 589.05 13.20SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC 13.20 302,108.18CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC 302,108.18 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 19Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 8,195.36WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC 8,195.36 67.05REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVAN DIEST, ANN 67.05 94.50ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM 94.50 1,278.31VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS 73.48COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE 1,351.79 91.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWARSHAWSKY, ROBERT & GRACE 91.67 177.45GRANTSGARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT 177.45 57,340.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 23,868.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 33,820.79SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 16,543.39SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE 131,572.98 858.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 858.50 2,879.65CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC 2,879.65 464.13REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC 464.13 27.72WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWEISBERG, PHYLLIS 27.72 50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHIPPS, MATTHEW 50.00 273.04SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSWINDUSTRIAL COMPANY 273.04 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20 7/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:28:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 20Page -Council Check Summary 7/16/2010 -7/3/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 61.12REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOODWARD, JOHN 61.12 160.31FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS 55.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.06AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 534.37 13,920.43FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY 238.06PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE 505.59WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 19,141.50ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 8.32GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 800.93WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 34,614.83 53,889.77TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP 53,889.77 6,113.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC 6,113.10 103.52BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 103.52 7.11WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEMBRYKI, MARK 26.77SUMMER PRE/K GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.58SUMMER GRADE 4-5 GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.46 366.72PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC 366.72 Report Totals 2,953,842.11 City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21 Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4k MINUTES St. Louis Park Housing Authority St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Justin Kaufman STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for April, 2010 The Board minutes of April 14, 2010 were unanimously approved with the following amendments: Paragraph 2, last sentence to read, “…and the motion passed 3-0.” Paragraph 6.b., sentence added to end of paragraph to read, “Commissioner DuFour left the meeting.” 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Public Housing Utility Allowances, Resolution No. 594 Ms. Schlegel reviewed the changes to the 2010 Public Housing Utility Allowances, stating that generally gas prices have decreased but electricity prices have increased. Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve Resolution No. 594, 2010 Public Housing Utility allowances, Scattered Site Houses. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0. b. Amendment to Housing Authority Bylaws, Resolution No. 595 Ms. Schnitker explained that the proposed amendment was a minor administrative change, increasing the dollar threshold governing the procurement of purchases and contracts under the formal bidding process from $25,000 to $50,000. Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve the Amendment to the Housing Authority Bylaws, Resolution No. 595, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: Housing Authority Commission Minutes May 15, 2010 c. Public Housing and Section 8 Collection Loss Write-Off, Resolution No. 596 Ms. Klesk stated that the HA annually writes off collection loss items consisting of unpaid rents, cleaning charges, equipment, damages and other charges. Additionally, the HA attempts recovery through the Minnesota Revenue Recapture system. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve Resolution No. 596, Public Housing and Section 8 Collection Loss Write-Off, in the amounts of $3,600.43 for the Public Housing program, and $1,478 for the Section 8 program. Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0. d. Approval of Section 8 SEMAP Certification FYE March 31, 2010 Ms. Schnitker explained that SEMAP is a management assessment system utilized by HUD to annually measure the performance of local housing authorities administering the Section 8 Program. The HA received a SEMAP high performer score of 104% for FYE 2009, and based on staff examination of records, systems, and files, the HA believes it meets the highest threshold for all indicators for FYE 2010. Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) Certification, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. e. Proclamation Honoring Board and Commission Volunteers Ms. Schnitker read aloud the Proclamation Honoring Board and Commission Volunteers and thanked the Commissioners for their service on the Housing Authority Board. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List for May, 2010 b. Communications 1. Monthly Report for May, 2010 2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Renee DuFour, Secretary Meeting Date: July 19, 2010 Agenda Item #: 5a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: Boards and Commissions EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint citizen representative Suzanne Metzger as a commissioner to the Housing Authority for a term of 5 years expiring on June 30, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to appoint this individual to the Housing Authority for the term listed above? BACKGROUND: City Council reviewed the applications of and interviewed two individuals on July 12, 2010. Council discussed the candidates and unanimously agreed to appointment Ms. Metzger to the board and commission identified and for the term listed. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to the recommended conditions. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the major amendment be approved thereby allow the parking requirement to be reduced by 33 stalls (10.5%) for this mixed-use development? BACKGROUND: The Ellipse on Excelsior development is a five-story mixed use building with 132 residential apartments, 16,394 square feet of commercial uses on the ground floor, and underground and surface parking. The residential development is expected to open in September 2010. The commercial spaces will likely open in spring 2011. Site Area: 2.28 acres Zoning District: MX – Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Adjacent Land Uses: North: single-family houses East: France Av, golf course South: Excelsior Blvd, gas station West: Glenhurst Av, park, vacant lot Since the original PUD approval in February 2009, there have been a few minor and administrative amendments to the plans. First, the Economic Development Authority and Bader Development agreed to a shared driveway easement on the border of the former American Inn site. This change provides full access onto Excelsior Boulevard. It also added two surface parking stalls to the Ellipse City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD on Excelsior surface lot. The plan now provides 103 surface parking stalls. Second, the developer and City selected Norman Andersen to provide a public art sculpture in the plaza. There were modifications to the plaza design to complement the art. Finally, the developer extended the fence and made adjustments to tree plantings along the northern boundary based on requests from neighboring residential property owners. The current site plan is attached for your information. The current application requests a reduction in the number of parking stalls required by City Code for the development based on the proposed tenant mix and the applicant’s strategy for managing parking on the site. The developer proposes a mix of uses that includes a restaurant that is 5,050 square feet and medical/dental clinic. The original PUD limited the space that could be used for a restaurant to 3,000 square feet and did not anticipate a medical/dental clinic use. The proposed change in mix of uses increases the number of parking stalls required by the zoning ordinance. The City received the application to amend the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD on May 25, 2010. The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the application on July 7, 2010. A number of residents spoke at the hearing. The prime concerns were increased traffic and parking from the development on streets in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. Several residents also were looking for a strategy and commitment from the developer and/or City to prevent overflow parking in the neighborhood. A copy of the unofficial meeting minutes are attached for City Council’s information. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the application, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution (see attached). The Planning Commission also recommended further review of controlling on-street parking in the neighborhood. ANALYSIS: The Ellipse on Excelsior development is in the Mixed-Use Zoning District and qualifies for parking reductions because it is adjacent to regular transit service, and because mixed-use development provides opportunities for shared parking. Ellipse on Excelsior has 177 parking stalls below-grade and 103 spaces in the surface parking lot for a grand total of 280 parking spaces. This number is fixed, so the tenant mix and parking management must be deliberate to ensure it is adequate for the uses on the site. The cumulative parking requirement for the development is the sum of parking ratios established in the zoning ordinance for each use on the site. The proposed uses and corresponding ratios for this application are: • Multifamily Residential (176 bedrooms) @ 1 parking stall per bedroom • Restaurant (5,050 sq. ft.) @ 1 parking stall per 60 gross square feet • Medical or Dental Clinic (7,140 sq. ft.) @ 1 parking stall per 200 gross square feet • General retail / service uses (4,204 sq. ft.) @ 1 parking stall per 250 gross square feet By ordinance, the cumulative parking requirement would be 313 stalls based on the proposed mix of uses. However, because the peak parking demands occur at different times, these uses can share parking. Also, there is access to regular transit service, so visitors will arrive to the site using other modes, too. Therefore, it is expected the site does not need as much parking as indicated by simply adding the sum of the zoning code formulas. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD As noted above, the cumulative parking requirement for the proposed mix of uses would be 313 parking spaces. By ordinance the development is entitled to a parking reduction of 14 spaces due to its proximity to transit service resulting in a parking requirement of 299 spaces. It is the City Council’s discretion whether to reduce the parking requirement by an additional 19 stalls based on the proposed mix of uses on the site. The Mixed Use Zoning District regulations provide criteria to help guide the City Council’s decision. Also, a parking study was conducted to help inform the City Council’s decision. The total overall reduction in the cumulative parking requirement would be 33 parking stalls (10.54%) when the mixed-use and transit reductions are applied to the development. Table 1 provides a summary and comparison of the parking requirements for the original PUD approval and the current proposal. Table 1. Off-Street Parking Requirements & Allowed Reductions Original Approval Current Proposal Cumulative Parking Requirement 280 313 Parking Reductions Transit (mandatory) Mixed-Use (discretionary) -11 0 -14 -19 Adjusted Parking Requirement 269 280 Parking Provided 278 280 Percentage Total Reduction 3.9%10.5% MX District Criteria: The Mixed-Use Zoning District allows the cumulative parking requirements to be reduced up to thirty percent (30%) at the sole discretion of the city council, based on one or more of the following criteria. The development and proposal meet two of the criteria, as explained below. 1. Joint parking/shared parking arrangements between uses The mix of uses on the site have varying peak parking demands. The parking demand for any particular use varies depending on the time of day, day of the week, and the month. Therefore, the proposed mix of uses share and use the available parking more efficiently. The applicant is the developer, owner and manager of the property. The applicant proposes to designate 19 stalls in the underground parking garage for shared use by the commercial tenants. The applicant submitted a document titled “Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines” that outlines the issues and the proposed management approach (see attached). 2. Proof of parking may include reserved open space areas in excess of minimum open space requirements and/or agreement to construct parking ramps or other means of satisfying parking requirements when and if warranted as determined by the city zoning administrator based upon evidence of overflow parking on public streets, in fire lanes, or in other areas that are not striped for parking. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD The site does not have room to provide proof of parking or additional structured parking on- site in the event that there is overflow parking on public streets. 3. Off-site employee parking, employee car/van pooling, and/or provision of employee transit passes. The site is adjacent to regular transit service, and in the short term there are nearby areas that could be leased for overflow employee parking, if it was needed. The “Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines” does not include these strategies. The parking demand conclusions indicate overflow parking should not be necessary if parking is well managed on-site. The City currently has an agreement with Bader Development to allow construction workers to park on the former American Inn site. Extending this agreement to allow overflow parking from Ellipse on Excelsior may be acceptable in the short-term, but also may require improvements to the site (i.e. paved parking lot, storm water management, etc.). 4. Superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit access As stated previously the site has access to regular transit service 1 (Routes 12 and 114). It is also near a regional trail and provides ample bicycle parking on-site. Finally, Excelsior Boulevard is within a special services district that provides exceptional maintenance of pedestrian amenities such as lighting, landscaping, benches and sidewalks. Though not included in the “Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines,” the applicant is providing a shared car (Toyota Prius) that can be rented for a small fee and shared bike(s) that can be borrowed by apartment residents. Parking Demand Study: The City hired an independent firm, Walker Parking Consultants, to conduct a parking demand study to help evaluate the proposed application (see attached). The developer provided an escrow to the City to fund the study. Please note that the study tested a somewhat larger restaurant and office area than the actual request. The study predicts the peak demand to be 280 parking stalls. The peak demand is predicted to be from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. on a Saturday in December. The study finds that the development provides adequate on-site parking during the peak demand, if 18 parking stalls in the underground garage are utilized for any combination of guest, employee or customer parking. The report conclusions support the proposed application. 1 Regular transit service shall operate at least twice hourly between 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and once hourly after 6:30 p.m. Regular transit service shall operate on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. [St. Louis Park City Code Section 36-361(d)] Route 12 meets this requirement. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Permit Parking: The City does have a permit parking program/system. Permit parking has been established in the City for large and smaller scale overflow parking problem areas such as at the Senior High School as well as for individual homes where the homeowner or resident is disabled. Most recently a permit parking system was put in place for the residential area near YUM!. The permit parking was implemented after a documented, ongoing parking problem was identified and a neighborhood public process was completed. This may be a tool that could be used in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood if an overflow parking problem develops. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. o The Ellipse on Excelsior design creates a new community gathering place o The development has great connections to parks, trails, sidewalks and transit. • St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. o Recognizing shared parking and transit use in determining how much parking ought to be provided is a sound practice and environmentally friendly. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. o Thoughtfully considering and minimizing potential negative impacts on residents in and around the development helps maintain the quality of the neighborhood. • St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. o Minimizing the size and visual impact of parking lots improves community aesthetics o The quality of the development, including the building design, corner plaza and public art improves the appearance of the site and community. Attachments: • Draft Resolution • Proposed Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines • Excerpt of the July 7, 2010 Planning Commission Unofficial Meeting Minutes • June 23, 2010 Neighborhood Meeting Notes • Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Demand Study prepared by Walker Parking Consultants • Site Plan Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD RESOLUTION NO. 10-_______ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 09-028 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 09-028 ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 2, 2009 AND APPROVING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED MX – MIXED USE LOCATED AT 3900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC has made application to the City Council for a major amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance to reduce the cumulative parking requirement of 313 parking stalls by 33 stalls (10.5%) to 280 parking stalls at 3900 Excelsior Boulevard within the MX –Mixed Use Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 08-36-PUD and 10-21-PUD and the effect of the proposed parking reduction 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 and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-028 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 09-028, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 08-36-PUD and 10-21-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 09-028 filed as Document Nos. A9333184 and T4624894 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting a mixed-use development within the M-X Mixed Use Zoning District at the location described above based on the following conditions: City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official exhibits. 2. The following requirements, consistent with the official exhibits, shall apply to the PUD: A. The maximum number of residential units shall be 132. B. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be 278280. C. The maximum of gross floor area used for restaurant shall be 5,050 square feet. 3,000square feet. The City Council may approve an increase to 3,500 square feet of restaurant with a minor amendment to the Final PUD. D. The maximum building height shall be 60 feet. E. The majority of the first floor shall be used for commercial purposes. F. The plan shall meet the MX District setbacks from the adjacent R2 zoning district. G. All trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside the building. H. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building or landscaping design and 100% screened from off-site. 3. Before starting any land disturbing activities on the site (excluding demolition of existing buildings): A. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and official exhibits. B. The developer shall submit to the City proof of recording the final plat with Hennepin County. C. The developer shall submit building material samples and colors to the City for administrative review and approval. D. The developer or developer’s engineer shall schedule pre-construction meetings at mutually agreeable times with all parties concerned, including City staff, to review the program for the construction work. 1. The developer’s general contractor shall present a parking plan for construction equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, at the preconstruction conference that minimizes or eliminates parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 2. The developer shall involve a neighborhood representative in the preconstruction conference relating to the parking plan. E. The developer shall obtain all required permits for the proposed work, including but not necessarily limited to: 1. City right-of-way permits (required for any work within the right-of-way, including utility work, curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveway aprons, parking bays, road closures and sidewalk closures. 2. Hennepin County permits for all work within the County right-of-way. 3. NPDES permit. 4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits. 5. City erosion control permit (the City will require a copy of the watershed district and NPDES permits prior to issuance). 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall enter into a Planning Development Contract with the City that addresses, at a minimum, the following: City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD A. Installation and on-going maintenance at Developer’s expense of on-street loading and streetscape improvements along all public streets, including the proposed landscaped median in France Avenue. Construction plans for said improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. B. Installation at Developer’s expense of relocating and abandoning public sanitary and storm sewer mains in accordance with City approved design and materials. C. Participation by the property owner in the special service district relating to maintenance of streetscape improvement within the public right-of-way along Excelsior Boulevard. D. Installation and on-going maintenance of public artwork that will be located in the plaza area at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. The minimum financial contribution shall be finalized before the City Council takes action on the Final PUD. E. Performance guarantee (financial securities) in the form of cash or letter of credit for 1.25 times the estimated cost of installing public improvements, development landscaping, and survey monuments. F. Developer or owner cooperation, but not necessarily financial contribution, to consolidate driveway accesses onto Excelsior Boulevard should the site at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (American Inn) redevelop and provides an opportunity for a full driveway access (not right-in, right-out only) to Excelsior Boulevard for both properties. 5. The developer or owner shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the Planned Unit Development approval. 6. During construction the developer, general contractor and subcontractors shall comply with the following requirements: A. Construction activities involving the use of power equipment, manual tools, movement of equipment, or similar activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activity shall occur on Sundays and holidays. Limited exceptions to these construction hours may be permitted if the City issues a noise permit. B. The developer and general contractor shall implement and enforce a parking plan for construction equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, which minimizes or eliminates parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. C. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. D. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. E. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not line up, park or idle on neighborhood streets. F. Vehicular traffic access on France Avenue shall be maintained at all times. G. Pedestrian access along Excelsior Boulevard and to the existing bus stop shall be maintained during construction. Any expected disruptions shall be limited in duration and scope, and communicated to the City and County well in advance. 7. Before the City issues a final certificate of occupancy: City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD A. The Developer shall provide the City with a complete set of reproducible "as constructed" plans and an electronic file of the "as constructed" plans, all prepared in accordance with City standards. 8. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades located in the Mixed-Use building facing Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue: A. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following requirements: 1. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. 2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. B. Awnings. 1. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. 2. Backlit awnings are prohibited. C. Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a maximum of five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided a six-foot minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue is maintained between obstructions on public sidewalks and provided that all activity is occurring on private property: 1. Display of merchandise. 2. Benches, planters, ornaments and art. 3. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance. 4. Dining areas may extend beyond five feet of the building, provided eight feet minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue is maintained between the obstructions on the sidewalk. D. All wall vents and assorted fixtures shall be painted to match the color of the wall to which they are attached. 9. The development shall comply with the following Fire Department requirements: A. New on-site fire hydrants shall meet City specifications. B. An existing hydrant is shown remaining at the corner of Excelsior and France. The condition of this hydrant (and overall fire protection needs for the site) must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. C. Fire standpipes shall be provided in east and northwest stairways. D. The fire sprinkler system shall be an NFPA 13 system zoned by the floor level. Zone valves shall be in a location approved by the Fire Marshal. E. The elevator shall have a back up generator per State of Minnesota elevator code. F. Floor levels for the elevator shall be designated/labeled garage (-1), ground floor (1), second floor (2) and etc. G. The make up and exhaust fans in the garage level shall have fire department override switches at a location approved by the Fire Marshal. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD 10. The development shall comply with the following Public Works Department requirements: A. The developer shall cap all existing water services to be removed. B. The underlying soil conditions of the proposed relocation area for sanitary and storm sewer mains shall be verified for adequacy. C. The utility relocation construction work area extends into Excelsior Boulevard, and it is expected that lane closures will be necessary. Work within the Excelsior Boulevard right- of-way, or any lane closures, shall occur only with the permission of Hennepin County. Hennepin County will likely require full restoration standards to all roadway and other disturbances. D. The proposed relocation of the sanitary sewer lift station wall panel shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Utility Division. E. The developer shall be responsible for all bypass pumping as needed during the course of constructing the relocated sanitary and storm sewer mains. F. The property owner shall be responsible for long term maintenance of the proposed landscaped median in France Avenue. G. The minimum sidewalk clearance width between obstructions (i.e. landscaping, light poles, bollards, stairways, building, etc.) shall be six feet at all locations. H. The plan shall comply with the recommendations of the traffic study prepared by SRF Consulting Engineers and dated 10-30-08, including: 1. Provision of sufficient space for temporary vehicle parking in the proposed Excelsior Boulevard loading area to prevent queuing onto Excelsior Boulevard. 2. Installation of proper signage to clearly identify the ramp as “Resident Parking Only,” in order to prevent unfamiliar vehicles from entering the below ground parking garage area. 3. Installation and use of secure access (i.e. card key) to the below ground parking garage located at the garage entrance. 4. Installation of signage such as “stop” or “yield” signs, in accordance with MUTCD, shall be provided on-site to prevent internal conflicts amongst vehicles, as well as vehicular and pedestrian conflict areas. 5. Provision of adequate clearance and installation of proper signage for service and emergency vehicles at the west end of the development where the surface parking lot passes under the proposed building. 6. Installation and maintenance of neighborhood identification sign in the proposed France Avenue median. 7. Installation of “No Outlet” sign(s) on northbound France Avenue. 8. Location and design of the proposed France Avenue landscaped median shall provide sufficient clearance for all traffic on France Avenue to easily enter and exit the development’s driveway (i.e., offset distance of the median and design of median nose) and shall not restrict access into or out of the adjacent home north of the proposed redevelopment. 9. Consideration shall be given of vehicle and pedestrian sight distance and potential for damage by vehicles and snow plows with respect to the design and location of France Avenue gateway treatments. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD 10. Provision of at least 14 feet wide travel lanes on France Avenue (curb face to curb face) in the vicinity of the proposed landscaped median in France Avenue to provide adequate space for large semi-trucks and on-street bicycle traffic. 11. Installation of “No Parking” signs along France Avenue for the entire length of the proposed France Avenue median. I. All maintenance in the boulevard area (including streetscape and snow removal) shall be provided by the property owner, or through the Excelsior Boulevard special service district. J. Street lighting units on Excelsior Boulevard must be identical to existing Excelsior Boulevard units for uniformity and maintenance purposes. K. Proper traffic control and safety in accordance with MUTCD (in addition to specific County and City permit requirements for all work within the public right of way). L. The developer shall maintain adequate separation between boulevard trees and underground utilities. Boulevard landscaping plans and small utility plans are subject to City Engineer review and approval. 11. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for the underground parking structure. 12. Future commercial tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e. restaurant), sign permits, and building permits to finish interior spaces. 13. Commercial and office tenants shall provide customer entrances from the plaza. 14. The plaza design and features shall maintain an open connection to the public sidewalk. Temporary or permanent barriers that restrict access to commercial and office customer entrances onto the plaza and connections to the public sidewalk shall be prohibited. Limited use of temporary fencing surrounding tenant outdoor seating areas may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee provided convenient access to the commercial and office building entrances onto the plaza are maintained. 15. The developer shall submit a sign plan for the entire development to the City for administrative review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee prior to City issuance of sign permits. 16. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on July 19, 2010 to incorporate the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: A. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and official exhibits. B. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits; such documents incorporated by reference herein. C. The owner shall designate 19 parking stalls in the underground garage for shared use by any combination of guests, employees or customers and manage parking on the property to ensure on-site parking is fully utilized in order to avoid overflow parking on public streets. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines (submitted by applicant) Walker Parking Consultants report indicates no issue on parking with residents/commercial tenants. Parking at The Ellipse is not “at will,” it’s always managed. The lease does not allow abandoned or inoperable cars to be parked on the property. We will not allow storage of boats, motor homes, snow mobiles, etc. on the property. Each resident will be required to move the vehicle parked in their stall on a regular basis. The garage will not be for car storage. Concerns: 1. Parking overflow into the neighborhood 2. Neighborhood overflow parking in Ellipse lot 3 Enforcing underground parking of employees 4. Employer/employee will not pay for parking 5. Access 6. Security Resolution: 1. Signage at property indicating who can and should park in the lot and length of time parking allowed (i.e., Prospective Resident Parking, Guest Parking, etc.). 19 spaces in the garage will be assigned for commercial parking. 2. Registration of all residents and employee vehicles and stickers authorizing vehicle parking in the garage/lot. 3. Daily on site employee patrol of parking facilities to remove unauthorized vehicles, insure residents and retail employees are parked in garage. All employees and residents will be required to have visible color-coded parking stickers to monitor where they are parked and for how long. 4. This will be based on market demand. The parking lease will be executed with the Employer and the Employer will assign to Employees. The Ellipse reserves the right to sublease these spaces to residents based on vacancy. 5. Commercial employees parking in the underground garage will have access to the stairwells and the elevator for egress. 6. All residents/employees using the underground garage will sign a parking agreement and background checks will be conducted in order for the tenant to have access to the underground garage lot. Depending on the tenant mix and market demand, the options for usage of the 19 underground spaces are as follows: 1. Employer/Employee parking at market rate for the commercial tenants 2. Valet parking for the restaurant 3. Flex parking based on the employee/employer work schedule which will allow restaurant greater access to the 19 spaces City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission July 7, 2010 3. Hearings A. Major amendment to Planned Unit Development – Ellipse on Excelsior Location: 3900 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC Case No.: 10-21-PUD Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said the request is specifically for a parking reduction on the site in order to accommodate potential tenants for the commercial space. He stated the applicant’s request is to reduce the parking requirement by 19 parking stalls. Mr. Walther explained since the original approval in 2008 administrative and minor amendments have been approved for the site which include selection of a public artist and public art for the project, a redesign of the plaza in coordination with the artist, extension of a fence to screen some mechanical equipment, and a negotiation between the City and Ellipse on Excelsior to create a shared driveway on Excelsior Blvd. Mr. Walther reviewed the criteria by which the City may reduce parking requirements in a mixed-use project. He explained that in this case the request meets the criteria of joint parking/shared parking arrangements between uses and the criteria of superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit access. Mr. Walther stated the applicant proposes to designate 19 stalls in the underground parking garage for shared use by the commercial tenants. Mr. Walther spoke about the parking demand study prepared by Walker Parking Consultants. The main conclusion of the report is that the projected peak demand is 280 parking stalls which would occur on a Saturday evening in December. Commissioner Morris said he questioned the evaluation of superior transit system. He said Route 12 is not a full service route. He said Routes 12 and 114 may be described as adequate but not superior. He added there isn’t much pedestrian friendly space just east of the site. He said the site isn’t close to any existing bike trail system although Excelsior and France may have bike lanes. Commissioner Morris said he didn’t expect there would be much non-car use to get to the site. He spoke about parking and circulation problems at Trader Joe’s at Excelsior & Grand. He asked if staff would consider using the description normal to average rather than superior to describe the transit. Mr. Walther said staff could evaluate that again, but said he believes Route 12 does meet the ordinance criteria for frequently operating transit service which the ordinance deems to be the threshold for granting the transit reduction. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she agreed with Commissioner Morris. She said if the ordinance considers Route 12 as superior, that needs to be looked at. She said she didn’t expect employees or customers to use public transportation, bikes, and bike paths to this site, especially City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD considering the climate. She asked for information from the applicant about the leasing of parking stalls. She asked for more information from the parking consultant regarding spaces provided and spaces demanded. Commissioner Robertson asked if it was possible that any tenants of the building would be employees at the site. Mr. Walther responded that was highly doubtful and probably not the case. Commissioner Carper asked how restaurant parking requirements are determined. Mr. Walther said the code bases that on gross square footage or one stall for every 60 square feet. Commissioner Carper asked if there would be adequate space adjacent to the restaurant at the entrance for patio type seating. He asked if that square footage is included with parking calculations. Mr. Walther responded that the applicant would have space available in the plaza area to provide additional seating. That seating would be limited under the ordinance to not more than 500 square feet or 10% of the gross floor area of the restaurant. Commissioner Carper asked about parking on France Avenue. Mr. Walther stated that there aren’t any restrictions on parking north on France Ave. No changes are being proposed. There is some parking south on France Ave. that might be within walking distance but it is pretty unlikely that would be used. Parking is also available on Excelsior Blvd. but it is not very conveniently located to the site. He spoke about a proposed bump-out on Excelsior Blvd. designated for loading only. In the future staff will have to review what is appropriate between the driveway and the corner of Excelsior Blvd. in terms of on-street parking. The indication at the neighborhood meeting is that area needs to be kept clear for the intersection operations. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there is any other parking designation other than permit parking, such as resident parking. Mr. Walther said there is not any other designation. He said with commercial businesses the city counts parking stalls that are adjacent to the property, but it cannot be designated for that use only. Sometimes hourly limits are agreed upon. He said permit parking is the alternative because that is the only way to control and enforce the parking. Commissioner Robertson asked about types of restaurants that are being discussed relative to hours of operation. Mr. Walther said while conversations have occurred, a tenant has not been signed at this point. Chair Person asked if the number of underground shared stalls could be increased. He asked about valet parking and overflow parking. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Scott Froemming, Walker Parking Consultants, spoke about the demand number of 280 stalls identified in the parking study report. At that point, the demand was higher than the quantified number of stalls provided in the development. Some minor modifications have been done to the site plan since then. Mr. Froemming spoke about the designation superior transportation system. He said that designation is unique to St. Louis Park’s local zoning. He said in doing a parking study, data is used from the 2000 census that identifies the way people travel through large volume surveys. In St. Louis Park the numbers used to determine superior transit line are very much in line with the statistics provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Urban Land Institute. Mr. Froemming said the study was produced on data gathered across the country and specific uses looking at specific occupancies of a dental clinic, commercial retail occupancies in a smaller mall format, and fine casual dining. Commissioner Morris asked if the over capacity underground stalls could be used as proof as parking. Mr. Walther responded that those stalls must be designated for commercial use. If there is less demand from the commercial side, then the stalls could be subleased from the employer back to residents. There is some flexibility, but for purposes of this approval and the plan going forward the employer will need to hold those stalls. It will be included in the conditions of approval and becomes part of the Planned Unit Development agreement. Commissioner Carper asked about residential leases for parking. Mr. Walther spoke about different lease options available for residential parking. Chair Person asked the parking consultant to comment on the 1:1 bedroom/parking stall ratio used in St. Louis Park. Mr. Froemming said it varies radically by unit size and the urban nature of the development. He said he thought the ratio used by St. Louis Park is appropriate. Robb Bader, Bader Development, spoke about changes in the restaurant and retail market. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about leases for employer parking. Mr. Bader said their intention is to lease to the employers. He discussed his experience with parking in the apartment, retail, and restaurant businesses. It is expected that there will be about 15 restaurant employees who would utilize leased parking. Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, described the expected tenant mix. He spoke about the two full access drives which will make parking more convenient. He spoke about a growing trend for one car per apartment unit. Barbara Halverson, Steven Scott Management, said Ellipse residents will be required to rent an underground parking stall as part of the lease. She spoke about property management of parking. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Chair Person opened the public hearing. Karen Beaudin, 4112 Randall Ave., stated she is concerned about overflow parking in the neighborhood. Before a change is made, residents need to make sure there will be no Ellipse parking in the neighborhood. Mary Beaudin, 4112 Randall Ave., said she questioned the math presented about apartment resident parking. She said most households have two cars. She asked how the management will keep residents and guests from parking in the neighborhood. Ms. Beaudin asked where the valet would park cars. She said she thought there would not be enough surface parking for guests, especially during holiday seasons. Brian Johnson, 3345 Glenhurst Ave., spoke about the ratio and full occupancy. He said he believed most households have two cars. He said there are currently 43 stalls and 39 units rented. He said he didn’t see how the 2 car per household trend would change. He said Steven Scott Management manages properties very well. He said he’d like to hear of some examples around town which they manage which include apartments and retail, specifically abutting residential neighborhood. Mr. Johnson discussed page 5 of the report, Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Guidelines. In reference to Resolution No. 1 he asked what would happen to prospective resident parking spots in the evening. He asked how many guest parking spots would be allocated, and what hours would they be used. He had questions about subleasing to residents mentioned in Resolution No. 4 and the displacement of commercial parking spots. He said that he may be describing worse case scenarios but said these scenarios are important to note, especially when a project is allowed to go forward. Mr. Johnson said he wished to speak from a written statement he had prepared. He said he did not wish to block the PUD amendment and does not want to see vacant retail space at the Ellipse. He is pleased that Bader has obtained quality tenants. Mr. Johnson said his highest priority, however, is for the safety of his neighborhood. He said the neighborhood’s three biggest issues from the start of the development have been height, traffic in the neighborhood, and parking in the neighborhood. The height did not change. The median buffer was agreed upon by the neighborhood and the developer to address traffic in the neighborhood. They were told that parking would be a non-issue. At the neighborhood meeting on June 23rd with developer and staff, Mr. Johnson said he readdressed the parking concerns. This time they were told it would be preferred to take a wait-and-see approach on parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said parking in the neighborhood is now no longer a non-issue but a potential issue with a wait-and-see approach which means there is no plan in place at all. He said a fair question to ask is what really is the issue about cars parking on France Ave. He said it isn’t just about France Ave. He spoke about neighbors who live on the west end of 34th St. who experienced Al’s Bar customers parking at 34th St. and then walking through the park up to Al’s Bar when Al’s was closing for good. He said he was concerned about the grand opening of the restaurant and parking. Ultimately the issue will be parking on France Ave. in the long term. There will be increased traffic throughout the neighborhood. France is the only outlet for the neighborhood residents. He said the neighborhood’s number one concern is safety. He said he is concerned about restaurant bar patrons parking, talking, and leaving the neighborhood noisily at 1 a.m. He said during the June 23rd neighborhood meeting it was mentioned it might be possible to rent spaces at the gas station across the street or even from the city’s lot at the vacant American City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Inn site. Mr. Johnson suggested that since the developer and city share the driveway, why not specifically create an overflow lot of the city owned vacant lot parking lot for the residents, guests and commercial overflow. If a developer does show interest in the land, parking issues can be readdressed at that time. Mr. Johnson concluded by saying he did not want the Commission to block the PUD approval but to create a provision that addresses the safety concern of the neighborhood. Elizabeth White, 4118 Randall, said she had problems with the parking math. She said the neighborhood’s biggest concern from the beginning was that there was not enough parking. Now after promises about parking, the residents are asked to give in and allow more parking which is extremely upsetting. She said she hopes the city won’t just give in. Ms. White said it is a wonderful neighborhood which the city should be proud of and want to show off. She said she hoped the Commission would not allow parking problems to end up in the neighborhood. She suggested it might be wiser to reduce the rent so the commercial tenant can afford to have a smaller restaurant. Maybe the developer has to do something, not the neighborhood. Doug White, 4118 Randall, said he doubted 10% of customers will be biking or walking in the winter, which is about six months of the year. One should seriously look at those numbers when doing calculations to reduce the amount of parking required. He said it is disconcerting to him that the developer would miscalculate the size of a restaurant by 100%. What was earlier approved was a 5-story building with a 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant. Prior to the approval there was a citizen advisory committee that recommended 4-story building. The height was maximized. And now the restaurant is doubled. He asked if the changes will ever stop. He said he is very concerned about safety and noise. Mr. White said it would be wise to determine how many cars are owned by rental tenants, not only how many stalls they lease. Wayne Kosti, 3332 France Ave. S., spoke about changing times which includes the decline in property values. Residents want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Quality of life and safety are at the top of the list. He said he doesn’t see how to avoid a difficult situation other than to restrict parking in the neighborhood as part of the development. He said if all parties collaborate together and are realistic about the challenges and impacts, everything will succeed. It’s a serious issue. Frank Steck, 4121 Randall Ave., said he agrees with the concerns mentioned by residents. He said promises were made earlier that parking from the Ellipse would not impact the neighborhood. He’s concerned about France Ave. being the overflow. No parking for the Ellipse should be allowed in the neighborhood. He said they are positive about the Ellipse, but parking is problematic. He suggested permit parking only for the residents on France. He spoke about parking problems at Trader Joe’s and Bunny’s and hoped this could be avoided at Ellipse. Mr. Steck said Yum’s restaurant permit parking seems to be working well. He concluded by saying that France Ave. is a very important bikeway. He said he appreciated the Commission’s help in resolving this important issue. Ellen Anderson, 3336 Glenhurst Ave., urged the Commission to address the parking issue now, and not wait to see what happens. She said a lot of time was spent by the neighborhood and the developer on a particular design to try to avoid parking on France Ave. The idea was that the City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD development does not impinge on the neighborhood. She spoke about the difference in scale between the development and the neighborhood. She said we are still a commuter society and everyone is driving. She doubted that many tenants will continue to have only one car. She said it was very fortuitous that the American Inn space opened up for the city, providing an additional driveway for the development. Ms. Anderson said she’d like the city to step up and find a way to get more parking for the development and to keep the parking out of the neighborhood. Pat Skinner, 3336 Huntington Ave., wanted to give the development and the process a chance. He said now it doesn’t appear that it will work out well. Overflow parking was always one of the concerns and it has never changed. He said with all the parking and traffic study that was done earlier he’s confident that parking credits would have been sought and granted. He doesn’t understand what has changed in the last 12 months. He said he doesn’t see people biking or walking to the site. He suggested the developer is looking for the path of least pain in reworking the deal on the back on the city and the neighborhood. He said the developer needs to continue looking at the restaurant size and numbers. It is a developer issue that requires a market based solution. The intent and spirit of the neighborhood from the beginning has been no parking in the neighborhood and no parking overflow. The amendment is called a major amendment and he said he hoped it would receive that kind of consideration. Patty Cullen, 3304 Huntington, provided her concerns by email on July 6, 2010 to staff. The communication was distributed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Cullen stated she did not want to see the city allow the reduction of parking spaces and was concerned about safety issues in the neighborhood due to increased traffic and parking. Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Morris asked if the transit reduction had been applied in the PUD application. Mr. Walther responded that the development was eligible for the transit reduction previously and therefore they had a surplus of parking, and they didn’t actually need it based on the tenant mix. Commissioner Morris said the surplus is now eaten up due to additional capacity needs and an additional 19 spaces are out there that need to be reduced so they can meet the capacity. Mr. Walther said that was correct, in order to meet the city code requirement based on the uses proposed. Commissioner Morris said he doesn’t know that the issue of the residential with the leased parking is as compelling as the increased usage of the retail portion, which seems to be driving the need for the reduction. He acknowledged and said he understood the neighborhood concern. He said the Commission doesn’t have any authority to deal with the residential parking. It is a zoning staff and City Council issue based on other criteria. Commissioner Morris said he’s not sure all avenues of resolution have been found by the developer. He spoke about permit parking. He spoke about the vacant city lot being used as an interim use for parking. Commissioner City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Morris said he was not in favor of granting the amendment as he feels there are other alternatives that need to be explored. Commissioner Robertson acknowledged the concerns about overflow parking. He said he was comfortable with the amendment. It has been a creative look at different uses, peak times, and non-peak times. He said it is all about management, thinking and planning. He said he thinks the residential numbers are accurate. He said he is comfortable with the request. He said he believes there are a number of options available to protect the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she could not recommend this request to the City Council. She said the Commission should be able to act on on-street parking issues. She stated that permit parking only for residents should be provided to neighborhood residents. She believes there are other alternatives available to the developer. Leasing at the vacant lot should be pursued. She spoke about traffic problems at Excelsior/Hwy. 100 commercial area and Park Nicollet. She said she was very cautious about traffic studies and the reality of living, working and shopping here. Commissioner Shapiro said regardless of the amendment, there will be parking in the neighborhood if on-street parking isn’t restricted. He said it is an urban site. He said he trusts the rental tenant parking numbers. He said good access is provided to the site by bicycle and transit. He commented that he knows many people who commute downtown by bicycle 10 months of the year. There will be more transit, LRT, and biking. He said he thinks it will take some work with the developer, neighborhood and city going forward. He said he believes it will work. He suggested the adjacent city lot would be a short term fix only. Commissioner Carper said the arguments in both directions are very persuasive. He said he understands the neighborhood concern about parking. He said he thinks the city will be responsive in terms of parking permits on France Ave. Rental tenants may also want to apply for those permits. He believes the rental tenant parking numbers are correct and the garage won’t fill up. He said he is in favor of the request. Chair Person said he supports the staff recommendation. He said he supports permit parking or other parking restrictions in the neighborhood and that the developer should be required to provide additional leased parking. Commissioner Morris spoke about the recent approval of the West End development which included a certain square footage of grocery space and parking. The parking spots are tight but it has never been at overflow capacity. In the Ellipse request, an amendment is being requested for a larger restaurant with less parking. He said he isn’t comfortable approving the request. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she doesn’t agree with staff to use the “superior pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit” criteria as a basis for approval of the request. She said she didn’t believe the developer should be allowed to reduce the number of spaces based on an increase in the restaurant, without a solid plan of management to prevent overflow parking in the neighborhood. She said all parties deserve to have this looked at further. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 21 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Commissioner Robertson said when it comes to planning what is going to happen one can only take the best estimate based on experience to date. There was a little bit of parking cushion when the PUD was approved. He added that commercial tenants generally know what they need. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Major Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to conditions recommended by staff and subject to a further look at controlling parking in the neighborhood. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2 (Johnston-Madison and Morris opposed). City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 22 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Staff Meeting Notes Ellipse on Excelsior Neighborhood Meeting Wednesday, June 23, 2010 City Hall Council Chambers Q: How are restaurants vented? A: All spaces vented through chases to the roof. Q: Are the potential commercial tenants established businesses? A: Yes. Local pediatrician clinic practice, local restaurateur (not a national chain), nail salon, and hair removal business (national chain new to this market). Q: How do the tenant areas compare with City Code parking ratio requirements? How does that compare with the original approvals? A: The City Code parking ratios for: • Multiple Family Residential is 1 parking stall per bedroom, including up to 10% for guest parking • Retail is 1 parking stall per 250 square feet • Medical Clinic is 1 parking stall per 200 square feet • Restaurant is 1 parking stall per 60 square feet The site is located along a regular bus line, so the development is entitled to a 10% parking reduction for the commercial uses (not the residential). The approved PUD anticipated 13,394 square feet of retail and 3,000 square feet of restaurant. Therefore, a total 269 stalls were required by City Code. The plan provided 278 parking stalls (101 on the surface lot and 177 in the underground garage). The new proposed tenant mix is 4,204 square feet of retail, 7,140 square feet of medical clinic, and 5,050 square feet of restaurant. Therefore, a total of 299 parking stalls are required by City Code. Three parking stalls were added to the surface parking lot when the City and Ellipse on Excelsior successfully negotiated a shared driveway easement on the former American Inn site. The plan now provides 104 surface parking stalls. Q: Why does the City have parking regulations if it is not going to follow them? A: City Code allows additional parking reductions for planned unit developments and projects in mixed use districts. Therefore, the development is eligible for both of these reductions. However, the City Code does not provide much guidance as to the criteria for granting such reductions. To analyze the application, the City hired Walker Parking Consultants to conduct a Parking Demand Study. Bader Development paid an escrow to the City for the study. The Study indicates that there would be a surplus of approximately 19 underground parking stalls (not used by building residents). The study finds that if these 19 underground parking stalls were occupied by commercial employees, customers or residential guests there would be adequate parking supply on the surface lot to handle the peak parking demand. The peak parking demand is expect to be from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on a Saturday in December. One resident commented that she visited the model unit and asked the salesperson about parking. She was told that residents could rent parking spaces underground, but could not park on the surface lot. The resident asked where they would park if tenants had a car but did not purchase a parking stall. The salesperson said there was parking available on Excelsior Boulevard. This concerned the neighbor, because there was not very convenient or overnight parking on Excelsior Boulevard. Residents concluded that parking would end up on the streets in their neighborhood. Barbara Halvorson commented that 35 units at Ellipse on Excelsior have been pre-leased. It appeared that tenants were typically leasing one space per unit (not one per bedroom). City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 23 Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Barbara Halvorson commented that there would be an on-site property manager that would be tasked with tightly managing the parking lot, not just during peak times, but daily. Barbara Halvorson also said she would speak with the salespeople to ensure the correct responses were given to perspective tenants, and that during leasing (contract signing) a discussion regarding parking with tenants was necessary. Q: How much does the underground parking cost? A: $75/month with storage or $50 without storage. This may fluctuate based upon demand. Q: How long are the terms of the parking leases? A: They are the same term as the apartment leases (one year). Q: Where does Bader Development think parking will go if the parking lot does fill up? A: Cars may park on France Avenue. Q: Does Bader Development think overflow parking would go to the dead end of Glenhurst Avenue? A: It seems unlikely, because it is an indirect route to walk from Glenhurst to the development due to grade changes, fences and landscaping. Q: How will the shared driveway work? A: Changes to the median on Excelsior Boulevard would provide full access (left and right turns to and from Excelsior Boulevard) and extend the existing left turn lane. This should reduce the traffic entering and exiting the site from France Avenue. Q: What will the landscaping and fence buffer look like along the north side of the site? A: City of St. Louis Park Senior Planner Sean Walther showed images from the original application that are available on the city website at http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/File/Ellipse_on_Excelsior.pdf Q: Will the landscaping areas be irrigated? A: Yes. Q: Will the landscaped median in France Avenue be irrigated? A: Yes. Q: What is the schedule for completion of the project? A: The project is planned to be substantially complete (open) on September 1, 2010. Q: When will the changes to the Excelsior Boulevard median and France Avenue median installation be complete? A: September 1, 2010 Q: Will the City commit to manage parking on France Avenue if it proves to be a problem? A: The City has a procedure in place for receiving, evaluating and responding to traffic and parking issues. There is a group of staff from the Engineering, Community Development, Streets, and Police Departments that review complaints and requests monthly. Changes to parking regulations require City Council review and approval. The City’s response to issues typically involve study, deliberation and neighborhood input. This takes time (several weeks or several months) to determine if there is a problem, the cause of the problem, and appropriate solution(s) to address the problem. The staff report may not specifically address how the City would respond to parking problems. Mr. Chad Cooley January 31, 2007 Page 1 J:\21-3650-00-Ellipse_on_Excelsior\Reports\final\Report Walther 052510.doc May 25, 2010 Mr. Sean Walther AICP Senior Planner City of Saint Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: Shared Use Analysis The Ellipse on Excelsior Walker Project # 21-3650.00 Dear Mr. Walther: Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) was commissioned to perform a shared parking analysis on The Ellipse on Excelsior located at the intersection of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. The following report details our methodology, analysis and findings surrounding the projected parking demand for this development. When evaluating parking supply needs for The Ellipse on Excelsior, Walker projected the parking demand experienced during the busiest hour of the busiest month of the year. The philosophy behind this approach is simple; if the planned supply is adequate to meet demand at the pinnacle hour of the year, it will be more than adequate to meet demand during the remainder of the year as well. STUDY AREA The development at Excelsior and France is a mixed-used development featuring market rate rental housing, retail, office, and restaurant space, with a total 132 housing units and 16,394 square feet Gross Leasable Area (GLA). Project parking stall quantity are comprised of 101 on grade, and 177 enclosed stalls. LAND USES For this analysis, we assume the following land uses at the completion of The Ellipse on Excelsior in Saint Louis Park: • 132 housing units comprised of 176 Bedrooms • Medical office space of 7,500 square feet • Commercial retail space of 3,666 square feet • Casual/Dining restaurant space of 5,228 gross square feet. • The Study site limits include only the subject property. 1660 South Highway 100, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Voice: 952.595.9116 Fax: 952.595.9518 www.walkerparking.com City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Page 24 Mr. Sean Walther 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. May 25, 2010 Page 2 METHODOLOGY A Walker designed shared use parking demand model was specifically modified for The Ellipse on Excelsior project. This model was developed using basic demand ratios developed by Walker, the Urban Land Institute, the Institute of Transportation Engineers and other agencies. Base ratios are developed by observing hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land uses during the course of a standard year (365 consecutive days) and identifying design conditions for a weekday and a weekend. At the peak hour of the year, a comparison is made between the total number of cars parked and a key driver specific to the land use (square footage for most land uses, rooms for a hotel, units for a residential complex, seats for a theater or cinema, etc.). Some base ratios were supplemented by additional data and fieldwork. Base ratios are shown in the following table. Table 1: Recommended Parking Ratios Land Use Visitor Employee Visitor Employee Unit Source Weekday Weekend Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf)2.9 0.7 3.2 0.8 /ksf GLA 1 3.6 4 Fine/Casual Dining 15.25 2.75 17 3 /ksf GLA 2 18 20 Residential Shared, Rental 0.15 1.5 0.15 1.5 /unit 2,3 1.65 1.65 Medical/Dental Office 3 1.5 3 1.5 /ksf GFA 2 4.5 4.5 Sources 3. Data collected by Team Members 6. Walker Parking Consultants 1. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers , Second Edition. Washington DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 1999 2. Parking Generation, Third Edition. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 4. John W. Dorsett, "Parking Requirements for Health Clubs" The Parking Professional April 2004 5. Gerald Salzman, "Hotel Parking: How Much Is Enough?" Urban Land , January 1988. Recommended Parking Ratios Spaces required per unit land use Weekday Weekend Total Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Parking Model 2005 Rev 11 24 2008 Walker utilized these basic ratios and specifically tailored them to The Ellipse using three factors to customize the model. The first factor is a driving ratio. The driving ratio represents the percentage of users arriving at the site by means other than personal vehicle. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 89 percent of Ellipse employees and residents arrive to work via private vehicle. The second factor is the non-captive ratio. Non-captive ratios are typically expressed as a percentage of users who create no incremental parking demand when visiting more than one land use on the same trip. (For example, the office building employee who walks to a retailer during lunch.) Overall, City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Page 25 Mr. Sean Walther 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. May 25, 2010 Page 3 the effects of the captive market can be significant. The use of the non-captive ratio factor ensures that patrons are not counted twice in the overall parking demand estimate for the study area. Walker based the non-captive ratios on actual observations at mixed-use developments around the country. Adjustments to base demand ratios to render project-specific ratios are shown in the following table. Table 2: Adjustments to Base Ratios for Driving and Captive Users at Build-Out Walker Shared Parking Model Release Date 24-Nov-08 Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Day Evening Day Evening Day Evening Day Evening Community Shopping Center (<400 ksf)3,666 GLA 11 12 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Employee 3 3 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Fine/Casual Dining 5,228 GLA 80 89 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Employee 14 16 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Medical/Dental Office 7,500 GFA 23 23 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Employee 11 11 89% 89% 89% 89% 98% 98% 98% 98% Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 134 144 Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 28 30 Total Parking Spaces 162 174 Driving Ratio Non Captive Ratio Unadjusted Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model 2005 Rev 11 24 2008 The final factor applied to the shared use analysis was presence. Presence is expressed as a percentage of peak potential demand modified for time of day and month of year. Presence can have a significant effect on parking demand in a mixed-use development. For example, a 10,000 square feet retail store has a peak parking demand equal to 36 parking spaces on a weekday or 40 spaces on weekend day at the peak hour. However, this demand is dependent upon the time of day. At 3:00 a.m., the store is unlikely to project any parking demand at all. Historically, when designing a new development, planners calculated the parking demand for each land use component as a stand-alone entity, providing each use with an independent parking supply. This assured a parking surplus for the development, but increased the developed area and amount of impervious area. In reality fluctuating patterns of demand allow different land uses to share some or all of the same facility, thereby reducing the total number of parking spaces and thus impervious area needed to support a development. By ensuring a development offers an appropriate parking supply for the busiest hour of the year (without an unneeded surplus), owners are also able to maximize public space and increase project density. The more the individual utilization patterns of land uses differ from each other, the more complimentary they are to Shared Parking use. For example, an office and a retail component are complimentary as they experience peak demand periods at different times during the day and days of the week. Figure 1 illustrates hourly variations in presence on a weekday and weekend for the land uses planned for the project. City Council Meeting of July 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior Major Amendment to the Final PUD Page 26