HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/08/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
AUGUST 16, 2010
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. St. Louis Park High School Day One Event
2b. Beehive Relocation Project Award
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes July 26, 2010
3b. City Council Minutes August 2, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the
Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Rojo Mexican Grill Liquor License On-Sale Intoxicating
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application from
Rojo West End, LLC. dba Rojo Mexican Grill for an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
license to be located at 1602 West End Blvd. with the license term through March 1, 2011.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Resolutions for 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) to allow a larger restaurant and medical/dental clinic, subject to
the recommended conditions.
• Motion to adopt Resolution establishing no parking zones on a portion of France
Avenue.
Meeting of August 16, 2010
City Council Agenda
• Motion to adopt Resolution establishing permit parking on portions of France Avenue
and 34th Street.
8b. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit
application for in-vehicle sales and service for property located at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard.
9. Communication
Meeting of August 16, 2010
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for St. Louis Park Public Schools
Foundation, for an event to be held on October 23, 2010 at Perspectives
4b. Approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance regarding Zoning text amendments for Multiple-family
Residential in the Office Zoning District, and approve the summary ordinance for publication
4c. Designate Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $153,581.50 for the 2010 Sanitary
Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project - Project No. 2010-2200
4d. Designate PCiRoads the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with
the firm in the amount of $183,840.10 for the 2010 MSA Street Improvement Project –
Project No. 2008-1100
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at
3235 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0019
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
4125 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0052
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
3905 Zarthan Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0031
4h. Appoint City Council Member Mavity to Hennepin County’s Southwest LRT Community
Works Steering Committee with Council Member Finkelstein as the Alternate Member
4i. Approve of Filing Housing Authority Minutes of July 14, 2010 for filing
4j. Approve Vendor Claims for filing
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
St. Louis Park High School Day One Event.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor Jacobs is asked to introduce Gina Poretti and Nina Jonson, current Co-Advisors, and
approximately twelve youth representatives from the Day One student committee who will provide
background and current information about the Day One event.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
In the 14 years since the Day One initiative was created, many aspects of the project have evolved,
but what has remained constant is the belief that the entire community can be responsive,
collectively engaged and effective in communicating the message to our students that they are
valued. Additionally, students, staff, parents and the greater community are the essential ingredients
in creating a safe, supportive, energetic and effective place to learn and live.
The major goals of Day One are to:
• Reinforce fundamental social, emotional and academic hopes for the new school year
• Uniquely launch students and staff toward a successful, meaningful and productive school year
• Highlight eight basic attributes that are linked to students’ overall involvement and
achievements at St. Louis Park High School
• Accomplish the above in the most captivating and involving way possible
Returning advisors Nina Jonson and Gina Poretti are thrilled to be guiding this year’s committee.
The Day One students have chosen to focus on a theme of Change, and their goal is to bridge St.
Louis Park students and community members so that they can work together to create positive
change within the community.
Day One kicks off its new year by welcoming 9th graders and transfer students to St. Louis Park
High School on their first day of the new school year, which for 2010 is Wednesday, September 1.
City Council and the City Manager have been invited to participate at this event again in 2010 at St.
Louis Park High School from approximately 7:50 to 8:30 a.m. City Council and the City Manager
have participated in the past and the Day One advisors and student committee appreciate their
presence.
Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: St. Louis Park High School Day One Event
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. City Council’s and City
staff’s presence at and acknowledgement of this program solidify its strategic direction with respect
to their continued connection with the program and its ongoing engagement with the community,
especially its youth.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Gina Poretti, Day One Co-Advisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2b
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:
Beehive Relocation Project Award.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, will be present to accept an award from the
Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association for the Historical Lilac Park and Beehive Relocation
Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park and its Parks and Recreation Department will be presented with an
Award of Excellence from the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association for the redevelopment of
Lilac Park. In 2008, City staff worked in cooperation with MnDot, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Louis Park Historical Society, Three Rivers
Park District, and Nordic Ware to redevelop Lilac Park. The park is located at the southeast corner
of Highway 100 and Highway 7.
The redevelopment of Lilac Park included refurbishing deteriorating features in the park as well as
features located in Roadside Park along Highway 100. Features that were improved include
limestone picnic tables, a council fire ring and the beehive. The structures were originally built in
1939 by the New Deal Federal Relief Labor Program during the depression. The National Park
Service, located in Washington D.C., is aware of only two beehives (grill/fireplace structures) still in
existence in the United States. One is located in Robbinsdale, Minnesota and the other is now safely
preserved in Lilac Park.
In addition to moving and restoring the park features, a trail was constructed to link the park to the
regional trail.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City’s share of the project was funded by the Park Improvement Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Park redevelopment projects are consistent with our Vision statement that St. Louis Park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 26, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Closed Executive Session – Threatened Litigation by Ames Construction Relating to
Hwy. 7 & Wooddale Project
The City Council met in a closed executive session at 6:32 p.m. to discuss threatened litigation by
Ames Construction relating to the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue project. All Councilmembers
were present and the closed executive session adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
The City Council Study Session Meeting reconvened at 7:49 p.m.
2. Southwest Transit and Freight Rail Update
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and presented information prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates with respect to the project management team (PMT) for the pending MN&S freight rail
study, formerly the Kenilworth freight rail study, funded by the County and Mn/DOT. He stated
that this document describes the membership of the PMT, roles and responsibilities, and outlines
the study process, including environmental analysis and conceptual preliminary engineering work.
He added that the PMT’s kick-off meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 22, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers. He agreed to follow-up with the County regarding representation from the
Brooklawns and South Oak Hill neighborhoods.
Ms. McMonigal explained that Kimley-Horn has been retained to undertake a formal State
Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Mn/DOT will be the Responsible Government Unit
(RGU), as required by the State. She added that the City’s request for further study of the items
identified in the City Council’s resolution should be factored into this process.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has received any assurance that all of the items listed in the
resolution will be studied. Mr. Locke replied that the PMT will be responsible for responding to the
City’s requests.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010
Ms. McMonigal then presented information regarding the County’s implementation of the
Southwest LRT Community Works Project, intended to support community and economic
development in concert with the development of light rail transit in the Southwest metro. She
explained that the project will be established under the direction of a Steering Committee and will
comprise elected officials from Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, and St.
Louis Park, the Chair of the Metropolitan Council, two Hennepin County Commissioners, and one
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Board Member. She stated that the first meeting
will be held on September 8 at 8:00 a.m. at City Hall; the County has formally requested that the
City appoint one elected official and an alternate to the Steering Committee.
Ms. McMonigal discussed the role of the Steering Committee in relation to the Corridor
Management Committee and stated the Community Works Project will focus on coordinating
efforts among all the stations and cities included in the Southwest LRT route.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding funding of the Community Works
project. She also asked if the County will be required to complete the project consistent with the
City’s current zoning requirements.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the County does not have land use jurisdiction. She added that the
County is paying for some of the initial work on the Community Works project, and will likely be
applying for grants and other additional funding.
It was the consensus of the City Council to appoint Councilmember Mavity to the Steering
Committee and to appoint Councilmember Finkelstein as an alternate to the Steering Committee.
The City Council discussed traffic impacts with freight rail and whether further study should be
carried out by the City to assist the PMT as part of the MN&S freight rail study.
Mr. Locke stated that the City can retain its own consultant to review the work completed by the
PMT.
Ms. McMonigal presented the City Council with the Comprehensive Plan recently approved by the
Met Council.
3. City Council Norms
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and requested that the Council finalize the norms
previously discussed on June 28th.
Ms. Gothberg presented a revised draft of the norms based on feedback received from the Council.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he will continue to work with the Council when appropriate in order to
stay on task and to be more productive. He also asked that the Council designate a timekeeper to
assist him with keeping the Council on track.
Councilmember Santa agreed to serve as the timekeeper for the Mayor and Council.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010
It was the consensus of the City Council to adopt the City Council Norms as revised.
The Council requested that staff also prepare norms for the public so that audience members know
what to expect during a Council meeting as well as what the Council’s expectations are of the public.
Ms. Gothberg agreed to prepare norms for the public for review by the Council.
Mr. Harmening suggested that the Council give consideration to holding organizational
development sessions as a way to assist the Council in becoming a higher performing governing
body.
4. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 9
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for August 9th. He stated that
additional topics for the Council’s discussion at upcoming study session include Excelsior Boulevard
and a presentation by the Watershed District.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like the Council to discuss the civic facility study
sooner rather than later, and to have that discussion include a recommendation regarding the process
the City will use to evaluate a possible civic facility, as well as a discussion regarding a possible
public/private partnership so that potential uses are not duplicated.
Mr. Harmening stated that this item will be placed on the Council’s August 23rd study session
agenda.
5. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening advised that Dairy Queen has requested that the City Council delay consideration
of its CUP request until sometime in September.
The City Council discussed the contract with Golden Valley for dispatch services.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she attended a recent policy committee meeting of the League of
Minnesota Cities; the committee discussed local economies and is looking at agenda items for the
upcoming legislative session. She stated that it appears the recent Supreme Court decision regarding
variances will be a key legislative issue this year.
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. June 2010 Monthly Financial Report
7. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June, 2010)
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 2, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Westwood
Hills Nature Center Activity Specialist (Mr. Pope), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Junior Naturalists Recognition
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the City Council’s thanks on behalf of the entire
community to the Junior Naturalists and their families for their service this summer at
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Mr. Pope stated the Junior Naturalist program has been part of Westwood Hills Nature
Center for 20 years and provides students entering 7th through 12th grade with an
opportunity to interact with the public and gain knowledge in the outdoors; this year, 51
youth volunteers participated in the program and volunteered over 1,200 hours. He
explained that the students perform a variety of projects, including animal care, program
aide, water quality testing, learning about insects and wildflowers, and animal skull cleaning.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger and Mr. Pope presented certificates of recognition to each of the 51
youth volunteers.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of July 6, 2010
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
Councilmember Ross requested that the third paragraph on page 4 be revised to state
“Councilmember Ross asked what provisions the applicant is taking to control the liquor
sold on the outdoor patio, particularly given the busy mall location and the fact that there
are frequently a number of minors in the area, and asked if there would be staff presence on
the patio at all times because liquor is being sold.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Study Session Minutes of July 12, 2010
Councilmember Mavity requested that the second sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 5
be revised to state “She noted that there are approximately 3,000 applications waiting were
received for the City’s Sec. 8 housing when the list was opened for applications a couple of
years ago and only twelve Sec. 8 vouchers are typically available each year; those families
receiving assistance are typically stable and there is very little turnover in the Sec. 8 housing,
thus creating stability in the community.”
Councilmember Mavity requested that the word “possibly” be replaced with “possibility” in
the thirteenth line of the second full paragraph on page 6.
Councilmember Ross requested that a paragraph be added to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan discussion on page 2 that reads
“Councilmember Ross suggested that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission look
at bike safety rules as they apply to the City and adjoining communities as it appears both
cyclists and motorists are confused as to who has the right-of-way.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the last line of the third paragraph under Future
Study Session Agenda Planning – July 19 and July 26, 2010 be revised to state “good transit
access.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the tenth paragraph on page 4 be revised to state
“Councilmember Sanger reiterated her request to concurrently begin a study of whether the
broader recreational needs of the community are being met and added that the City
currently lacks any data regarding an actual need for a turf field.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the seventh paragraph on page 8 be revised to add her
vote regarding the pilot shallow rent subsidy program as “Councilmember Sanger: no.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Special Study Session Minutes of July 19, 2010
Councilmember Ross requested that a paragraph be added to the discussion under
“Legislative Update-Gary Carlson, League of Minnesota Cities” to state “Councilmember
Ross expressed concern about the potential impact to the School District budget since the
State is reducing its educational budget.”
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
The minutes were approved as amended.
3d. City Council Minutes of July 19, 2010
Councilmember Mavity requested that the 11th line of the first full paragraph on page 4 be
revised to state “…be to create a buffer for people coming in to the retail so that these
customers do not bleed in the neighborhood park in the neighborhood.”
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the second sentence in the sixth full paragraph on
page 4 be revised to state “He also encouraged the developer to meet with the neighborhood
residents to further discuss their parking concerns and to look into arranging additional
parking for the restaurant.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 7
be revised to state “She stated that it appears that no efforts have been made to bring the
property into compliance and the City will likely experience continuing compliance
problems if the CUP application is approved as currently submitted, and added that she felt
this would place an undue burden on City staff.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Authorize staff to execute a three-year agreement with ESRI for geographical
information system (GIS) software licenses and services.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-078 identifying the need for Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding and authorizing an application for grant funds.
4c. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2010.
4d. Approval of Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 1, 2010.
4e. Approval for Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings – None
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the
Office Zoning District
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She explained that the City currently has four
Office Zoning Districts in the City and multiple family residential is currently allowed in the
Office Zoning District by Planned Unit Development (PUD); this text amendment would
allow residential uses on the first and second floors and would allow the current density
restriction to be exceeded, at the discretion of the City Council under a PUD. She explained
that this amendment would allow a fully residential building in an Office Zoning District
and eliminates the restriction on density; the current Ordinance allows 50 units per acre plus
up to a 50% increase at the sole discretion of the City Council and the amendment would
allow an increase at the sole discretion of the City Council. She reiterated that any increase
would be granted by the City Council as part of the PUD approval process.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding maximum building height.
Ms. McMonigal stated that there is a height maximum in the Office Zoning District of 240’
or approximately 22 stories.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the site at Beltline and Monterey is in a much more
commercial area but expressed concern that a developer might come in with a proposal to
build a 22-story building on the corner of the property; she felt this would be an
inappropriate use for that area and questioned how the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment might impact this site.
Ms. McMonigal explained that the site at Beltline and Monterey is owned by the City and
the City has complete control of the site. She added that staff agrees that a tall building
covering the entire site is not an appropriate use for this site.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the City retained control of this site for specific
purposes and asked if the City’s records and/or past minutes could be reviewed to verify the
City’s intent. He suggested that the City Council may want to table action on this item
pending review of the City’s records and/or past minutes in this regard.
Mr. Harmening stated that when the City undertook the Melrose Institute project, some
rezoning may have been required and he recalled that the City talked about specific uses on
that property.
Mr. Locke noted it may be appropriate to look at the issues specific to this parcel because it
may be guided and zoned differently. He suggested that staff further review the question
about what should happen with this area of the City, separate from the issue of modification
of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that if staff will agree to come back to the Council with
another look at that site in particular, she would not object to the proposed changes to the
Office Zoning District.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern regarding access to off-site parks and open space,
because it appears that allowing increased density may not always ensure that there are open
spaces and green spaces as part of a project. She stated that the only reason to increase
density with height would be to thereby allow more green space, more open space, and more
access to public parks, etc.
Councilmember Ross agreed and added that she had some concerns from a health and safety
standpoint as it pertains to levels of carbon monoxide from delivery trucks and/or vehicles
running in idle. She asked if there are any regulations related to this issue, particularly when
the buildings are in close proximity to one another.
Ms. McMonigal stated that these areas are not industrial areas with trucks coming and going;
the peak times in the Office Zoning District are offset and fairly easy to predict. She advised
that the proposed residential development at the West End includes a planned multi-family
residential proposal next to the existing hotel; the multiple-family residential zoning district
did not seem appropriate for this location because this designation is used in so many other
areas of the City; as a result, staff looked at the Office Zoning District and determined that
with some minor modifications, it could work in this area.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if it was correct that unless the proposed text amendments are
approved, the West End project could not proceed as planned.
Mr. Locke replied yes.
Mr. Harmening explained that currently, multiple family residential is allowed in the Office
Zoning District and therefore is not a new use; however, staff discovered that based upon the
nature of the City’s zoning codes relative to multiple family residential, the West End
developer determined it could not do it and make it viable. He advised the proposed zoning
code changes would continue to allow multiple family residential with two modifications,
i.e., allowing more density, with any maximum density increase being at the sole discretion
of the City Council through the PUD process; the other proposed change removes the
restriction for residential only above the second floor. He reminded the Council that the
amendment is not changing anything from a use perspective.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that her concern is primarily related to the removal of the
50% cap on density and she would prefer to have a mechanism that leaves the cap in place
but that allows the City Council to waive that cap under appropriate circumstances.
Mr. Harmening stated that the City Council has the leverage to waive or modify maximum
density based on the specifics contained in a proposal.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
Mr. Locke explained that the idea was to ultimately let the City Council decide what was
appropriate on a case-by-case basis. He stated that one of the key things in the West End
project is that this is supposed to be part of a larger development and the design and
placement of the building is a critical piece in evaluating whether the Council would allow
this to happen in the first place.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that nobody wants to slow down the West End project
but he felt the issue was worthy of further study not only with respect to Beltline and
Monterey, but also in terms of Park Nicollet. He stated he wants to make sure the City
Council understands what the implications are with respect to the proposed text
amendment, particularly based on the concerns expressed this evening.
Ms. McMonigal stated the West End developer is proposing 120 units on 1.1 acres; this
would be a six-story building with two floors of parking, one floor of underground parking
and one first floor parking, so there will be residential units on five floors of the building.
Mr. Harmening reminded the City Council that the proposed amendment pertains to a
zoning district where office uses are ordinarily allowed, resulting in higher density from a
population and traffic perspective. He stated that a six-story office building has a greater
impact from a traffic and human interaction perspective than a six-story residential building.
Councilmember Mavity stated that allowing housing uses in this zoning district would be
acceptable to her; however, she does not want to open this up too far in terms of density
allowance and is concerned about how the amendment will impact other sites. She added
her concern stems from changing the zoning for all of the office sites currently in the City.
Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Mavity and stated that there is a lot of
high density housing in downtown Minneapolis with very restrictive green spaces and
limited open space. She acknowledged that the West End project is unique, but felt there
were other areas in the City where this type of use would not be appropriate.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the density issue was his primary concern and
requested that the City Council be given an opportunity to further review what was agreed
to with respect to the Beltline property and the Park Nicollet property.
Councilmember Omodt stated that the proposed text amendment represents a fairly subtle
change to two areas of the ordinance. He felt the changes were straightforward and
accomplished the City’s goals. He stated that the City owns the Beltline and Monterey
property, so the proposed amendment will not change anything on this property. He
expressed concern about delaying the West End project and urged the City Council to take
action on the first reading.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt First
Reading of an Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
by Amending Section 36-223(e)(1), and to consider any changes between the first and
second reading of the Ordinance.
The motion failed 3-3 (Mayor Pro Tem Sanger, Councilmembers Finkelstein and Ross
opposed).
Councilmember Ross stated that she does not want to delay the West End project and asked
if there was any way the City Council can adopt this so that the project is not further stalled.
She added she felt it was important for the City Council to further study this issue as it
relates to future development in the City.
The Council discussed density restrictions and the PUD approval process.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he is not interested in delaying the West End project and
asked if the City Council can amend the PUD for the West End project to allow the project
to move forward, and to bring the remaining issues to study session.
Mr. Scott stated that the City’s PUD is not a separate zoning district in and of itself but,
rather, represents a zoning process; in order to make this happen, the City has to have a
zoning district that would fit this particular building in the West End and that is why this
zoning district needs to be amended.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the West End developer could continue their work on
the project pending the Council’s further review.
Mr. Scott replied if the developer wanted to do that, he could, but it would not be practical.
Mr. Harmening explained that the City Council may continue this matter and ask that staff
bring the matter to study session in order to provide more information on how it might
impact other office zoning district areas. He added that another approach would be to
approve the first reading this evening and delay the second reading until such time as the
Council has had an opportunity to review it in study session. He stated if Council desires to
make modifications to the ordinance, it could do that and still proceed to the second
reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if the Council could pass an amendment to the ordinance that
removes the first and second floor usage restrictions, but not take action on the amendments
regarding density until after the study session.
Mr. Scott stated that the Council could proceed that way if it desired.
Mr. Locke stated that this would not provide much practical benefit particularly as it relates
to the West End project.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2010
Councilmember Ross stated that she would prefer to move forward with approval of the first
reading to allow the West End project to continue, and to have the Council address all the
concerns raised this evening in a study session.
Mr. Harmening agreed to place this matter on the study session agenda for August 9th.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt First
Reading of an Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning
by Amending Section 36-223(e)(1) and to postpone the Second Reading pending the
outcome of the City Council’s study session discussion on August 9, 2010.
The motion passed 5-1(Councilmember Finkelstein opposed).
8b. Major Amendment to Special Permit – U-Haul Truck Rental Facility, at the
Park & Wash Car Wash, 8951 36th Street West
Resolution No. 10-079
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-079 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Denial Regarding the
Application of JJ Beske Holdings, Inc. for a Major Amendment to an Existing Special Permit
under Section 36-194(d)(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to
Allow Truck, Trailer, Equipment Rental at 8951 36th Street West.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he viewed the property earlier today and saw trucks
and U-Haul trailers on the property. He stated that he felt the proposed use would be
difficult to police.
The motion passed 6-0.
9. Communications
Councilmember Santa reminded residents to attend National Night Out tomorrow evening.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for St. Louis Park Public Schools
Foundation, for an event to be held on October 23, 2010 at Perspectives.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for St. Louis Park
Public Schools Foundation during their event being held at Perspectives?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation has made an application for a temporary on-sale
liquor license for an event scheduled for October 23, 2010. The event will be conducted at
Perspectives, 3381 Gorham Ave in St. Louis Park from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm. The event is being
held in support of Public Education in St. Louis Park.
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the main principals and has
found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for issuance
of the license and staff is recommending approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The fee for a temporary liquor license is $100.00 per day of the event.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed By: Nancy Clerk, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve 2nd Reading of the Zoning Ordinance text amendments for Multiple-family
Residential in the Office Zoning District, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the ordinance provisions for multiple-family residential in the
Office zoning district?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Proposed is a zoning ordinance amendment related to multiple-family residential in the Office
zoning district. The purpose of the amendment is to allow a residential building to be solely
residential in use, versus requiring different uses on the first and second floors, and to remove the
density restriction of 75 units per acres.
The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance amendment at its August 2 meeting and
discussed the amendments further at the Study Session on August 9. During the August 9 Study
Session additional amendments to the ordinance were discussed to address Council concerns
regarding the impacts of the proposed ordinance. These additional amendments have been included
in the proposed ordinance attached to this report.
Residential Zoning in the Office Zoning District
Multiple-family residential is currently allowed in the Office zoning district only by PUD. There are
conditions in the zoning text for allowing a residential building. It is proposed that some of these
specific provisions be amended.
Multiple-family housing uses are not currently allowed to be more than 25% of the first and second
floors, and these provisions are proposed for deletion.
For density, the allowance in the Office district is 50 units per acre, with an increase allowed of 50%
- or up to 75 units per acre. The proposal is to allow higher density in specific PUDs by City
Council approval.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
The office zones are the most appropriate areas in the city for the highest density residential areas
because:
• It is consistent with the densities allowable for office development
• Major roadways are in place
• Transit service is in place.
• Adds a mixed-use component to office parks
• Allows day and night time uses in an area
• Allows the opportunity for people to live and work in the same area.
Ordinance Provisions
Based on the proposed ordinance, in order for additional density to be allowed in a project, the
following provisions (4-6) are proposed in addition to the existing standards:
hf. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased
by up to 50 percent at the sole discretion of the city council if two or more of the
following are provided:
1. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in underground or
aboveground structures, including all levels of parking ramps.
2. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is
screened from the public right-of-way by buildings.
3. At least 35 percent of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or
more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site.
4. The buildings are located in an area that is appropriate for urban development, and
has supportive services and amenities including transit, a high-quality pedestrian
environment, restaurants, retail shops, community gathering spaces and
entertainment and recreation opportunities.
5. The lots are located a minimum of 500 feet from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned
property.
6. Traffic analysis shows that the adequate levels of service standards can be met as
defined by the City Zoning Administrator.
Areas Zoned for Office
There are 5 sites zoned for office within the city (please see attached maps): West End area, Shelard
Park, Park-Nicollet Clinic, Melrose Institute (correction: only the Melrose site is zoned office; the
city-owned Bass Lake site is not zoned for Office, it is zoned RC, High density multiple family), and
an office building on Highway 100. The only Office zoned areas that have undeveloped sites are the
West End and Park Nicollet’s parking lot on Excelsior Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
Areas: Undeveloped sites:
Shelard Park None
Hwy 100 office building None
Bass Lake None
Park Nicollet Parking lot on Excelsior Blvd
West End Hotel/multiple family site and office areas,
(plus site south of Home Depot)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Office Zone Maps
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-223(e)(1)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-22-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-223(e)(1) is hereby amended by
deleting stricken language.
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. No structure or land in any O district shall be used for the following
uses except by the PUD process. These uses shall comply with the requirements of all the general
conditions provided in section 36-222 and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (e).
Uses and structures which are permitted by right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as conditional
uses may also be permitted by PUD. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to dimensional standards
and densities are provided under section 36-367.
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. The provisions are as follows:
a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment.
c. Access to off-site parks and open space, plazas and pedestrian ways is provided.
d. Housing-related uses do not represent more than 25 percent of the first story or 25
percent of the second story of any building in the development.
e. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing-related
uses located within the first story shall be limited to common areas and rental offices.
fd. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multibuilding project is at least equal to
the average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common walls.
ge. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal
private roadways or parking lots.
hf. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased
by up to 50 percent at the sole discretion of the city council if two or more of the
following are provided:
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
1. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in underground or
aboveground structures, including all levels of parking ramps.
2. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is
screened from the public right-of-way by buildings.
3. At least 35 percent of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or
more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site.
4. The buildings are located in an area that is appropriate for urban development, and
has supportive services and amenities including transit, a high-quality pedestrian
environment, restaurants, retail shops, community gathering spaces and
entertainment and recreation opportunities.
5. The lots are located a minimum of 500 feet from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned
property.
6. Traffic analysis shows that the adequate levels of service standards can be met as
defined by the City Zoning Administrator.
ig. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the
redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in
which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this
requirement.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-22-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing July 21, 2010
First Reading August 2, 2010
Second Reading August 16, 2010
Date of Publication August 26, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect September 10, 2010
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ______-10
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO PROVISIONS FOR MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL IN THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT
This ordinance amends Section 36-223(e)(1) related to allowing higher density residential in the
Office Zoning District.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 16, 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: August 26, 2010
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Bid Tabulation: Sanitary Sewer – Mainline Rehabilitation – Project No. 2010-2200.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $153,581.50 for the 2010 Sanitary Sewer
Mainline Rehabilitation Project - Project No. 2010-2200.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to undertake this planned improvement?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on August 9, 2010 for the Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project. This
project includes relining of the sanitary sewer lines at selected locations. Based on current video
inspections and maintenance records, staff has selected approximately 6010 feet, or about 10 blocks
of pipe, to reline as this year’s project. The work will occur at various locations throughout the city
including work in the Elliot, Aquila, Minikahda Vista and Meadowbrook Neighborhoods. The
relining process will rehabilitate or renew these sections of aging pipe and is expected to extend their
service life another fifty plus years.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on July 15, 2010. A total
of four (4) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. $153,581.50
Lametti & Sons, Inc. $168,155.50
Veit and Companies, Inc. $169.649.00
Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $176,915.75
Engineer’s Estimate $174,499.00
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: 2010 Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation - Project No. 2010-2200
Evaluation of Bids:
A review of the bids indicates Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid.
Visu-Sewer is a reputable contractor that has worked for the city before and has successfully
completed previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
This project has a completion date of April 30, 2011. The extended construction period provides
the contractor flexibility in scheduling the work during their slow periods resulting in more
competitive bid pricing. There is no additional inconvenience to residents as a result of the extended
construction period.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with a budget of $180,000.
The source of funds for this project is the Sanitary Sewer Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Bid Tabulation: Texas Avenue – 2010 MSA Street Improvement Project –Project No. 2008-1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate PCiRoads the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $183,840.10 for the 2010 MSA Street Improvement Project –
Project No. 2008-1100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the final step to allow this project to move forward?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on August 10, 2010 for the Texas Avenue - 2010 MSA Street Improvement
Project. The project includes work on Texas Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and W. 28th
Street. The 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 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.
A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in
the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on July 29, 2010. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
PCiRoads $183,840.10
Interstate Improvement $236,754.50
Diamond Surface, Inc. $272,217.06
Engineer’s Estimate $174,328.50
Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tab 2010 MSA Street Improvement Project No. 2008-1100
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends PCiRoads as the lowest responsible bidder. PCiRoads is an experienced contractor that
has performed similar repair projects successfully throughout the metropolitan area. As can be seen,
the Engineer’s Estimate is about $9,500 lower than the low bid. This is the first concrete rehab /
grinding project the City has undertaken and staff simply under estimated the cost.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin in early September and is expected to be completed by mid-
October.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project has been programmed in the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) for construction in
2010. This project will be completely funded by State Aid funds (gas tax monies) and there are
sufficient State Aid funds available to the City to finance this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3235 Webster Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3235 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0019.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Judith Graham, owner of the single family residence at 3235 Webster Avenue South, has requested the
City to authorize the repair of the water service line for her home and assess the cost against the property
in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines
for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service line repair and special
assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $1,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 3235 Webster Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3235 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0019
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3235 Webster Avenue South has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single family
residence located at 3235 Webster Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the water
service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $1,500.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the
special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by
ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through
a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to
implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 16, 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 4125 Utica Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4125 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0052.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Kyle Cook, owner of the single family residence at 4125 Utica Avenue South has requested the City to
authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines
for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special
assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $6,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4125 Utica Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
4125 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0052
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 4125 Utica 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 4125 Utica 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 $6,500.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary
to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 16, 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:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3905 Zarthan Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 3905 Zarthan Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0031.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Bradley and Mary Baird, owners of the single family residence at 3905 Zarthan Avenue South, have
requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against
the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service lines for
existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the 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 owners have 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
$5,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3905 Zarthan Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3905 ZARTHAN AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0031
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3905 Zarthan Avenue South have 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 3905 Zarthan Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the 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 Owners 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 $5,500.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs
associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
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 Elected Official to Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint City Council Member Mavity to Hennepin County’s Southwest LRT
Community Works Steering Committee with Council Member Finkelstein as the Alternate
Member.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to appoint Council Members to the Southwest LRT Community Works
Steering Committee?
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 2010 the City Council discussed the request from Hennepin County to have elected
officials appointed to the Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee. It was the
consensus of the Council to appoint Council Member Mavity as the city’s representative with
Council Member Finkelstein as the alternate.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Trinicia Hill, Justin Kaufman
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for May, 2010
The Board minutes of May 12, 2010 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Election of Officers
The Commissioners unanimously agreed to table the election of officers until the August
Board meeting. Ms. Schnitker explained that City Council interviewed two candidates
for HA Commissioner; one has been selected and will likely attend the August Board
meeting.
b. Recognition of Steve Fillbrandt, Resolution No. 597
Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve Resolution No. 597, Resolution of the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Recognizing Contributions and Expressing
Appreciation to Steve Fillbrandt. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion, and the
motion passed 3-0.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Commission Minutes July 14, 2010
c. Review of Proposed Use and Approval of the Acceptance of the 2010 Capital Fund
Program Allocation, Resolution No. 598
Ms. Schlegel reviewed the 2010 Capital Fund Program proposed allocation, in the total
amount of $214,113. The HA proposes an interior modernization of Hamilton House
and replacement of one maintenance pick-up truck. Commissioner Kaufman moved to
approve Resolution No. 598, Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park to
Accept the 2010 Capital Fund Program Grant. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 3-0.
d. Louisiana Court Update
Ms. Schnitker updated the Commissioners on recent discussions City Council has had
regarding consideration of Project For Pride in Living’s proposed financial restructuring
plan, and on whether the City should proceed with various City funded initiatives to
improve the financial stability of Louisiana Court. Proposed initiatives include
refinancing bonds, establishment of a pilot shallow rent subsidy program for 10-20 units
at Louisiana Court, contribution of a portion of the existing debt service reserve fund as
an equity contribution to assist in lowering project debt and support planned rehab
activities and financial contribution to lower the amount of debt owed on the project
and/or assist with financing capital improvements at the development.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List for June & July, 2010
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for June & July, 2010
2. Action Plan Update
3. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
4. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: August 16, 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 31, 2010 through August 13, 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
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
885.73FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
885.73
377.82WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESA&K EQUIPMENT CO INC
377.82SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
377.83STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,133.47
58.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
58.27
332.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
332.25
591.35SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
591.35
1,115.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
1,115.00
256.03VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEACTION FLEET INC
256.03
3,306.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM INC
3,306.00
9,910.00PAINTINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAERIAL PAINTING INC
9,910.00
310.19OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING REPAIRSALEX AUDIO & VIDEO
310.19
499.96YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESALL STAR SPORTS
499.96
78.71JUNIOR NATURALISTS GENERAL SUPPLIESALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU
78.71
30,144.28HOIGAARD VILLAGE - PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMERICAN ARTSTONE CO
30,144.28
494.22PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
494.22
87.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
144.72PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
88.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
125.76ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
99.14VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
134.98WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
134.97SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
22.51STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
838.70
1,305.89SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,305.89
1,378.69TRAFFIC CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,378.69
200.00SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAPOGEE RETAIL LLC
200.00
356.03AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAQUA LOGIC INC
356.03
32.43COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
32.43
75.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGATOM
75.00
40.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
40.00
107.17BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH
107.17
25.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBANCROFT, TRICIA
25.00
282.13POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESBARKER, BOB COMPANY
282.13
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
364.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
364.00
69.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGER, CAROL
69.00
15,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBLACK RIVER BLUFFS PROPERTIES
15,000.00
537.23NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
537.23
301.502008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT FISCAL AGENT FEESBOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
148.50STORM WATER REV BOND G & A FISCAL AGENT FEES
450.00
391.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
391.47
37.19WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBUCK, DANIEL
37.19
81.00ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSEBULTEMA, CORY
139.50ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
220.50
100.00ERUTRAININGCAMP RIPLEY MESS FUND
100.00
1,609.53IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,609.53
60.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCEAM
60.00
1,675.00DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
1,675.00
15,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
15,000.00
11.05WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCENTURY 21 PASTRANA
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.05
1,025.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHURCHILL, LEE
1,025.00
51.10GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
51.10
79.90INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
105.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
184.90
1,144.54CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1,144.54
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
159.95
390.24PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
390.24
53,743.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
53,743.00
8,158.89POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
23.81WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCOWAN, ERIN
23.81
200.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB
200.00
32.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCUMMINS NPOWER LLC
32.80
700.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
700.00
4,061.25SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,846.80SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,078.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
752.40SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,738.45
106.46WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSDAMAR INVESTMENTS
106.46
286.00GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSDAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES
286.00
40.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEDANDABATAULA, NEENA
40.00
90.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
4,288.25INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
4,378.25
231.00ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
231.00
1,514.79SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
3,511.98WATER UTILITY G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
5,026.77
41.03OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESDOBESH, MICHAEL
41.03
15.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSECKLUND, DENNIS
15.32
100.00FINANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
100.00
162.35SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSELECTRIC PUMP INC
162.35
391.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
391.83
2,676.15SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
2,676.15
5.50-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSEVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
135.50POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
130.00
1,288.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
294.77GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,583.24
4.90PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFASTENAL COMPANY
525.37PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
530.27
27.84OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
27.84
85.86BUILDING MAINTENANCE MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
209.68ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELS
295.54
81.12WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFILTRATION SYSTEMS INC
81.12
287.00OPERATIONSTRAININGFIRST RESPONDER SOLUTIONS
287.00
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWFLAMING, BEATRICE
750.00
78.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
78.33
25.00RENTALRENT REVENUEFORMO, CHRIS
25.00
5,500.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEFRANKLIN PLUMBING, BENJAMIN
5,500.00
2,300.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC
2,300.00
600.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGANINO, ELIZABETH
600.00
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
623.67BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL PARTS INC
623.67
193.96REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGOLDENBERG, LOUIS
193.96
190.25NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRAGE, ANDREA
190.25
112.69GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYGRAINGER INC, WW
112.69
666.46GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
666.46
576.07WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
576.07
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
100.00ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKSGROTH SEWER & WATER
1,500.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,600.00
1,400.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHALSTEN, BEN
1,400.00
225.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
225.00
4,036.94AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
2,741.84WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6,778.78
108.32INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGHEDRINGTON, THOMAS
108.32
29.99WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
29.99
450.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
450.00
4,009.50POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
1,348,126.27CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,352,135.77
13,438.44TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO
13,438.44
5,495.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
5,495.00
17.04ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
76.77PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
68.46TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.62BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
171.89
1.74GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
142.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
144.36
136.50ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
136.50
86.60REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHORK & T GOODMAN, BETSY
86.60
200.35WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOWARD, WILLIE
200.35
48.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
273.00
475.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
475.00
48.19WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
48.19
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
70.38REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIDZOREK, EDWARD & JULIE
70.38
1,163.94TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
1,163.94
17.61SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
17.61
267.19TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
267.19
95.83ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESINNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS
95.83
375.00PATROLTRAININGINSIDE THE TAPE
375.00
2,431.88IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,431.88
6,500.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOE'S SEWER SERVICE INC
6,500.00
350.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, KYLE
250.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
35,291.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC
35,291.00
138.07REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKANTER, CLAUDIA
138.07
1,588.03-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSKAY PARK-REC CORP
24,686.63PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23,098.60
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
1,120.00ESCROWSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
337.50PPL LOUISIANA COURT LEGAL SERVICES
1,457.50
2,000.00FINANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKERN DEWENTER VIERE CPA
2,000.00
892.80YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC
892.80
500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKILMER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
500.00
18,988.22PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAMPERT YARDS INC
18,988.22
70.53REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLARSON, DAN & LESLIE
70.53
102,547.25EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
102,547.25
135.20POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
135.20
46,171.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
205.15SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
55.32TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
46,431.47
400.00TV PRODUCTION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMACTA
400.00
80.67WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMALLON, BEN
80.67
1,289.36SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
1,831.05SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,201.27SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
242.94SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,564.62
25.00INSPECTIONS G & A DOGSMARCHIAFAVA, KRISTIN & JASON
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00
20,000.00HOIGAARD VILLAGE - PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMARTIN & PITZ ASSOC, INC
20,000.00
550.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCBRIDE, STEPHEN
550.00
106.88PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCROSSAN INC, C S
106.88
68.79REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCQUEEN, HEATHER
68.79
157.57PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
28.73PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
10.25WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)GENERAL SUPPLIES
259.72WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2.95OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
248.57PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
707.79
25.44PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
25.44
8,316.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
8,316.00
321.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMICRO CENTER
321.80
13,490.14SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
310.96PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
739.37WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
14,540.47
965.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
965.00
279.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
279.96
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,206.73EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,206.73
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
1,200.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS
1,200.00
461.70WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINVALCO INC
461.70
127.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC
127.85
60.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAININGMSTMA
60.00
139.78PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
545.43IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.80GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
707.01
703.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
703.00
1,221.68PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
13.64WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.90GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.95WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,275.17
1,700.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
1,700.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNGUYEN ARCHITECTS
225.00
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALNORTHERN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
48.00
23,856.66TASK FORCE GRANTS - STATENORTHWEST DRUG TASKFORCE
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
23,856.66
95.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNORTHWEST LASERS INC
95.00
80.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUENOWAK, JENNIFER
80.00
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
131.50WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
131.50
75.20ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
161.65HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
606.73HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
58.62SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
60.42GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
33.81POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.22NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4.92PATROLGENERAL SUPPLIES
10.20SCHOOL LIASON OFFICE SUPPLIES
47.67INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.36PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.38PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
106.73ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.37ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
123.12CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
46.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.43HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.38WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
84.08SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,763.33
146.00REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOLSON, ROBERT & KAREN
146.00
3,870.25PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
171.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
213.76WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,255.01
817.95EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
817.95
855.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
855.00
733.33WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
733.34SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
733.33STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,200.00
20.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPETTY CASH
14.95NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
34.95
11.00ASSESSING BUDGET POSTAGEPETTY CASH - WWNC
8.56SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
68.09WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.64SUMMER PRE/K GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.97SUMMER GRADE 2-3 GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.65OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
113.91
160.31BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
160.31
75.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEPLAYWORKS
75.00
222.03PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
222.03
122.18JUNIOR NATURALISTS GENERAL SUPPLIESPOPE, DREW
122.18
360.10PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
360.10
310.67WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
310.67SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
310.67SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
310.68STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,242.69
1,536.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,536.30
8,800.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRECISION FIRE SPRINKLER INC
8,800.00
5,602.88TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
5,602.88
1,997.50PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
1,997.50
285.91GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
285.91
19.70COMM DEV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
19.70
104.80IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
104.80
2,113.48FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
953.18REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
616.17WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
742.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,424.83
616.66WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
616.66SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
616.67SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
616.68STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,466.67
6,106.13AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESRECREATIONAL AQUATIC SOLUTIONS
6,106.13
21.71-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRECREONICS ETAL
337.48AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
315.77
148.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREMAX
148.31
993.08SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERICOH AMERICAS CORP
993.08
64.38PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRIGID HITCH INC
64.38
184.00SUMMER GRADE 6-8 PROGRAM REVENUERUHLAND, MAUREEN
184.00
55.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSATRE, CHAD
55.15
1,139.14EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONSAUTTER, SAMANTHA
1,139.14
4,477.94PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
4,477.94
104.00ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
104.00
1,600.00POLICE G & A TRAININGSCOTT COUNTY TREASURER
425.00ERUTRAINING
2,025.00
669.40PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSECURE TECHS INC
669.40
52,791.49PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
52,791.49
25.00RENTALRENT REVENUESEKTOR, VICKY
25.00
1,055.38PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
1,055.38
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
248.55PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
9,003.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,252.05
397.10WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSMOLIK, RYAN
397.10
72,389.17TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL
72,389.17
672.56IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
672.56
19.71WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSSPS COMPANIES INC
19.71
5,912.97ESCROWSGENERALSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
2,061.21PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
27.00PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
8,001.18
811.18PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST CROIX REC CO
811.18
15.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEST DAVID'S ADVENTURE
15.00
313.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTAHL, ERIK
313.00
412.38WESTWOOD G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SO
412.38
60.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTARKS, ALAN
60.88
236.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSTRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C
236.85
590.00POLICE G & A TRAININGSTREET CRIMES
590.00
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,367.52RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
429.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
3,796.58
274.75PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESUBURBAN CHEVROLET
274.75
385.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
385.26
361.08ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
114.40STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
475.48
40.00SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATSWANA
40.00
1,876.19PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSYLVA CORPORATION INC
1,801.38PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,677.57
51.76SUMMER GRADE 4-5 GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
24.86OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.62
32.25ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
32.25
74.55BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
74.56WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
149.11
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
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
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
3,610.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITHOMAS & SONS CONST INC
3,610.00
502.50ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
502.50
1,032.94ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESTKDA
1,032.94
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREHUS
225.00
177.01GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
177.01
895.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC
895.51
39.54GARAGE MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
39.54
6.41PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
6.41
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
2,753.10TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,753.10
62.25WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
62.25
13.53SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
13.53
93.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
93.00
42,470.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVEIT & CO
42,470.00
1,279.54VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.26COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,352.80
147.45REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVEZINA, MICHAEL & HEATHER
147.45
172.95WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
172.95
14.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYVILLAGE CHEVROLET
14.45
353.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
353.50
221.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
221.50
11,265.39CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
11,265.39
34,960.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWEBER ELECTRIC
34,960.00
50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEGSCHEID, ROB
50.00
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
8/12/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:21:18R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
8/13/2010 -7/31/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHIPPS, MATTHEW
50.00
50.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWHITE, JOHN
50.00
137.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWILENSKY, HEIDI
137.24
16,527.22FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
178.11PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
23.93BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
82.69WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
507.61WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21,882.30ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
35.96GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
10.77OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
8.39OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
39,256.98
10,211.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSXTERIOR XPERTS
10,211.00
346.61PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLSZACKS INC
346.61
1,022.72PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
1,022.72
Report Totals 2,267,672.20
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing - Liquor License – Rojo Mexican Grill.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application from Rojo West End, LLC. dba Rojo
Mexican Grill for an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license to be located at 1602 West End
Blvd. with the license term through March 1, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Rojo Mexican Grill?
BACKGROUND:
The City received an application from Rojo West End, LLC, Inc for an on-sale intoxicating liquor
and Sunday sales license. The establishment plans to open in August. It will be located at 1602
West End Blvd in the Shops at West End. The premises will consist of approximately 6,000 square
feet with 222 seats inside and 50 outdoor patio seats. Rojo will be a Mexican theme-based restaurant
offering traditional favorites and creative dishes with a “Nuevo” Mexican interpretation.
Rojo is owned by several investing partners: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Merritt and Mr. Ivey. Mr.
Merritt is the on-site manager. Rojo will be the second restaurant opened within the West End area
for Mr. McDermott and Mr. Merritt. The first restaurant is Sauce Pizza & Wine.
The Police Department has conducted a full investigation and has found nothing that would
warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s office
should Council members wish to review the information. The required public hearing legal notice
was published in the Sun Sailor Newspaper on July 29, 2010.
Should Council approve the liquor license no actual license is issued until all required compliance is
met with City Inspections Department and the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The investigation fee for a new applicant is $500. The yearly license fee is $8,000 for on-sale
intoxicating liquor license and $200 for Sunday liquor license (pro-rated).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 16, 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) to allow a larger restaurant and medical/dental clinic, subject to the
recommended conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution establishing no parking zones on a portion of France Avenue.
• Motion to adopt a resolution establishing permit parking on portions of France Avenue and 34th
Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Should the PUD major amendment be amended to accommodate a change in the mix of
commercial tenants to include a larger restaurant and a medical tenant at the Ellipse?
• Should parking restrictions be put in place to protect the residential neighborhood adjacent to
the Ellipse from intrusive commercial parking?
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
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 a 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.
UPDATES SINCE JULY 19, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
At the City Council meeting on July 19, 2010, the City Council tabled the application to provide
additional time to address concerns - primarily about parking. At the meeting three steps were
proposed to ensure that there would be adequate parking for the Ellipse; and, that the parking
generated by the Ellipse would not overflow into the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. The three
steps were;
1. Make arrangements for the Ellipse to use the former American Inn site for overflow parking
for special events or if there proves to be a shortage of parking for the Ellipse project. The
arrangement will be in place for a minimum of the next year and can be extended if the
parking proves to be needed on an on going basis. The availability of the American Inn site
for Ellipse parking would provide overflow parking if needed, for an interim period of time
until a permanent solution can be put in place.
2. Initiate a parking permit program for the portion of Minikahda Oaks neighborhood closest
to the Ellipse development where customers may be tempted to park on nearby residential
streets.
3. Strengthen the Ellipse's parking management plan to ensure the 19 underground garage
parking spaces needed at peak parking hours are used.
Further details on these elements are provided below.
Lease arrangements for overflow parking. The Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC has agreed to lease the
former American Inn site to accommodate potential overflow parking from the Ellipse on Excelsior.
A report detailing the terms of the agreement is attached to this staff report. The property is
technically owned by the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) and approval of the lease
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
arrangement will take approval by the City Council acting in its role as EDA. The lease
arrangement is proposed to be incorporated into the existing redevelopment agreement with the
Ellipse on Excelsior LLC by approval of a Second Amendment to the Agreement for Private
Redevelopment for the Ellipse on Excelsior. The item will be scheduled for EDA consideration on
September 7, 2010 if the City Council chooses to approve the Major Amendment to the Ellipse
PUD. A proposed condition of the PUD approval requires execution of the agreement. As you will
note in the attached report regarding the use of the EDA’s parking lot, the developer has agreed to
pay for the use of the property for overflow parking purposes for an initial term of one year
beginning September 1, 2010 for a fee of $3,000.
Restricted parking in the Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood. The areas most likely to attract parkers
from the Ellipse are those closest to the development. It is proposed that “no parking” be instituted
along the portion of France Avenue closest to Excelsior Blvd. (shown in red on the map). “Permit
parking only” is proposed for an area around the first few homes along France Avenue and around
the corner to the west on 34th Street (shown in yellow on the map). This area included could be
expanded in the future if needed. City staff reviewed on-street parking in the neighborhood and
spoke with the three households that would be most impacted by the parking restrictions. The home
owners expressed support for being
included in the parking permit
program area.
City Council asked that parking
restrictions be considered on
Glenhurst Avenue south of 34th Street,
too. Upon review, staff found that
fencing, landscaping, retaining walls
and topography will make parking in
this short block inconvenient for
Ellipse on Excelsior patrons; and,
therefore this area was not included in
the permit parking area.
Two draft resolutions implementing
the parking restrictions are attached
for City Council consideration. The
proposed changes would prohibit
parking on portions of France Avenue
(the golf course side of France
Avenue) and institute permit parking
on portions of France Avenue and 34th
Street as shown on the map (pictured
left).
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
Changes to Ellipse’s Parking Management Plan. The Ellipse on Excelsior Parking management plan
has been strengthened. It eliminates barriers to using the underground parking at times when the
parking demand exceeds the supply of surface parking. The Ellipse will make 19 spaces available in
the parking garage for the restaurant at no charge, and will require the restaurant to use the 19 spaces
through a combination of controlling employee parking and providing valet parking for customers.
These parking management tools will be required as conditions of approval of the PUD. The Ellipse
Parking Management Plan is attached to this report.
Other Parking Issues
Concerns were also raised at the July 19th City Council meeting about the accuracy and
appropriateness of both the applicable City parking requirements and the Walker Parking
Consultants analysis of the parking needs at the Ellipse. The questions raised at the Council meeting
were shared with Scott Froemming of Walker Parking Consultants and he will be at Monday’s City
Council meeting to answer any questions the City Council may have. Explanations of how the city's
parking regulations apply to the Ellipse and the parking analysis done by Walker are highlighted
below.
Transit parking reduction rules. The City parking ordinance permits a ten percent (10%) parking
reduction if a site is located within ¼ mile of a transit stop. To qualify, the transit stop must be
served by “regular transit service” on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be
available between the transit stop and the site. Regular transit service must 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. It must also
operate on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays.
The Ellipse meets the requirements for a reduction in parking for transit. There are transit stops on
the north and south sides of Excelsior Boulevard within ¼ mile of the Ellipse on Excelsior site.
There is pedestrian access available to the transit stops from the site. Metro Transit Bus Route #12
provides “regular transit service” to the site. Therefore, the ordinance standards are met for the
parking reduction.
In addition, the statistical data used in Walker Parking Consultant’s parking demand study for the
Ellipse on Excelsior site supports the 10% transit reduction allowed in the City’s off-street parking
standards.
Appropriateness of parking analysis for the Ellipse One of the questions repeated at the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings was whether the factors used by Walker to evaluate the
parking need were appropriate for our location specifically. City staff met with Scott Froemming of
Walker Parking Consultants to review issues raised during the City Council meeting. He explained
that the factors used in their analysis were based on 2000 Census data with current updates and
other industry sourced information. The factors Walker uses are proprietarily derived incorporating
34,994 data points with 5,125 samples from Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. The balance of the
survey data is from local cities similar to St. Louis Park with the largest data samplings from adjacent
communities. Mr. Froemming will attend the meeting to answer questions from the City Council.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
Potential congestion and circulation conflicts between apartment and commercial patrons. The
surface parking lot design provides two rows of 90-degree angle parking with a 24 feet wide shared
drive lane that has full access to public streets on each end. This design is extremely efficient for
both parking access and site circulation. It is a very different design than the layout of the Trader
Joes parking lot and apartment parking access. No circulation/access problems are anticipated at the
Ellipse site.
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 some people 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.
As noted above, the cumulative parking requirement for the proposed mix of uses would be 313
parking spaces. By ordinance, the development is eligible for 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 provides 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.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
Table 1. Off-Street Parking
Requirements &
Allowed Reductions
Original
Approval
Current
Proposal
Cumulative Parking Requirement 280 313
Parking Reductions
Transit Reduction
Mixed-Use Reduction
-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
Management Plan” that outlines 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.
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 Management Plan” does not include these strategies. The parking demand
conclusions indicate overflow parking should not be necessary if parking is well managed on-
site.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 service1 (Routes 12 and 114). It is
near a regional trail and provides ample bicycle parking on-site. Also, 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 Management Plan,” 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 slightly 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.
Permit Parking: Based on City Council direction, City staff has prepared a proposal to restrict
parking on France Avenue and 34th Street. Staff discussed the proposal with the three property
owners that would be impacted by the change. Two resolutions are attached for City Council
consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 approving the PUD Major Amendment with conditions
• Draft resolution authorizing "permit parking only" on portions of 34th Street West and
France Avenue South
• Draft resolution authorizing installation of “no parking” restrictions on portions of France
Avenue between Excelsior Boulevard and 34th Street West
• Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Management Plan
• Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Demand Study prepared by Walker Parking Consultants
• Site Plan
• Staff Report on Overflow Parking Agreement with Bader Development
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
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 August 16, 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 at least 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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
D. A lease agreement for potential overflow parking from the Ellipse on Excelsior project
shall be executed between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC for at least a one year term (September 1, 2010 – September 1,
2011).
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 August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
“NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS ON FRANCE AVENUE BETWEEN EXCELSIOR
BOULEVARD AND 34TH STREET
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has
determined that it is in the best interest of the City to install parking restrictions at this location.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking” on the east side of France Avenue, from 34th Street to Excelsior Boulevard.
2. “No Parking” on the west side of France Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point
190 feet to the north.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING "PERMIT PARKING ONLY"
ON 34TH STREET WEST AND FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has
determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “Permit Parking Only” at the following locations:
North and south sides of 34th Street from France Avenue to a point 135 feet to the
west.
West side of France Avenue from 34th Street to a point 107 feet to the south.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted in the area restricted
by permit parking unless the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit. Emergency
vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted
are exempt from the permit parking restrictions.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment – 3900 Excelsior Blvd.
August 2010
Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Management Plan
Commercial Parking
1. Restaurant must use the designated 19 stalls in the underground
garage at its peak hours and will not be charged during these peak
hours for use of the 19 parking stalls.
2. No overnight employee parking will be allowed
3. Restaurant may use garage for valet parking
4. Owner will complete and agreement with the City of St. Louis Park
for overflow parking, if needed, in adjacent former American Inn lot
5. On site manager available 24/7 to assist commercial tenants,
residents, and neighbors with parking needs/questions and monitor
the 19 underground parking spaces
Residential Parking
1. All residents must park in underground garage
2. All vehicles will be registered with management and given parking ID
to display
3. No inoperable or storage vehicles allowed.
General Parking Plan
1. On site management required to enforce parking policies in garage
and on the surface lot.
2. Site and garage signs to designate parking for limited periods of time
and specific uses to help manage parking
3. Commercial “Parking” sign to be installed at west entry of property
to help direct commercial traffic into the Ellipse parking lot
Mr. Chad Cooley
January 31, 2007
Page 1
J:\21-3650-00-Ellipse_on_Excelsior\Reports\final\Report Walther 072910.doc
July 29, 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 quantities 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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 19
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 20
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 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 August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 21
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 4
Figure 1: Variations in Presence by Time of Day – Weekday
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model 2007
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 22
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 5
Figure 2: Variations in Presence by Time of Day - Weekend
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model, 2007
Parking demand is also influenced by the time of year. The volume of patronage for a retail
establishment peaks during the holiday season and decreases rapidly thereafter. Subsequently, so
does the parking demand for the overall development. Retailers report peak annual activity the two
weeks prior to Christmas. During this time, parking demand may equal or even exceed 100 percent
of peak projections. Inversely, office demand decreases as employees are absent on Christmas
vacation. These variations for time of day and time of year were also calculated for The Ellipse on
Excelsior and applied to the model.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 23
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 6
Figure 3: Site Plan with Zones
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Parking demand is a dynamic, fluid force, subject to variations according to the availability of
alternative transportation, the proximity of complimentary land uses, variations of user presence
according to time of day and time of year, building occupancy rates and a host of other factors.
Inversely, parking supply tends to be a fixed quantity, limited by the amount of space that can be
allocated to parking facilities.
When designing or evaluating a planned parking supply, Walker compares the parking demand
expected during the busiest hour of the busiest month of the year to the planned parking supply. 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 adequate to meet demand during the other 8,759 hours of the
year as well.
The parking ratios expressed in this analysis have been based on observations of similar
developments. Walker has conducted numerous studies and consulted leading organizations, such as
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and the international council
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 24
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 7
of shopping centers (ICSC) in determining the appropriate ratios to be used in the shared parking
model.
A primary assumption for this study was the separation of parking occupancies do to the architectural
layout of the parking facilities. The residential parking area is completely separated from the public
access parking area (grade). Because of this physical and operational separation we removed this
occupancy from the shared parking model as we felt shared parking was not valid.
With this assumption we then considered the adequacy of residential parking. We understand the City
of Saint Louis Park requires a total of 176 residential stalls, with the development providing 177 stalls.
Of these stalls 10 percent (17) stalls may be considered residential guest stalls. Residential visitor stalls
have been factored out of the shared parking model as these stalls maybe assumed to be provided
within the enclosed access parking area. Alternate parking demand occupancies could be identified
to be placed into enclosed parking area as long as access to area is provide and the demand equals
at least 17 stalls and the stalls are reasonably utilized.
The following table shows a summary of peak hour parking demand for the project at build-out with
identified assumptions.
Table 3: Parking Demand Summary by Occupancy
Demand
Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio December
Land Use Demand December 7:00 PM Evening Evening 7:00 PM
Community Shopping Center (<400
ksf)11 100% 75% 98% 89%7
Employee 3 100% 95% 98% 89%2
Fine/Casual Dining 80 100% 100% 98% 89%70
Employee 14 100% 100% 98% 89%12
Residential Guest 20 100% 100% 100% 100%20
Medical/Dental Office 23 100% 30% 98% 89%6
Employee 11 100% 30% 98% 89%3
Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 162 120
Residential Guest (Enclosed)-17 -17
Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0
Total Parking Spaces 145 103
% reduction 29%
Weekday
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 25
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 8
Demand
Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio December
Land Use Demand December 8:00 PM Evening Evening 8:00 PM
Community Shopping Center (<400
ksf)12 100% 65% 98% 89%7
Employee 3 100%75%98%89%2
Fine/Casual Dining 89 100%100%98%89%78
Employee 16 100%100%98%89%14
Residential Guest 20 100%100%100%100%20
Medical/Dental Office 23 100%0%98%89%0
Employee 11 100%0%98%89%0
Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 174 121
Residential Guest (Enclosed) -17 -17
Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0
Total Parking Spaces 157 104
% reduction 33%
Weekend
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model 2005 Rev 11 24 2008
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 26
Mr. Sean Walther
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
July 29, 2010
Page 9
CONCLUSION
For weekends, the peak hour of the year is projected to occur at either 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. in
December. Based on the proposed mix of uses and applying shared parking, drive ratios, and
captive ratios, employee parking, residential guest parking in enclosed parking area the projected
annual peak hour demand figure for The Ellipse on Excelsior is 104 spaces (103 spaces for
weekday). The project anticipates providing 101 surface public access parking stalls and 177
enclosed stalls.
Based on our experiences and analysis, Walker projects the following peak parking demand for the
Ellipse on Excelsior.
Table 4: Peak Shared Parking Demand Summary - Weekend
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Shared Parking Model 2005 Rev 11 24 2008
We hope you have found this analysis informative and useful.
Respectfully Submitted,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Scott R Froemming P.E
Director of Operations
Demand
Retail 3,666 9
Fine Casual Dining 5,228 92
Residential Units 132 Units/176 Rm 179
Medical 7,500 0
Total 16,394 280
Primary Land Uses Square Feet
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 27
0 5 10 204077'-312"101 '-2 "30'-0"5'-8"SIDE YARDSETBACK113'-8"REAR YARD SETBACK5'-0"7'-0"FRONT YARDSETBACK2ND FLR.SETBACK60'-0"4'-934"82'-314"6'-6"A S 100E 5
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE4'-0" WIDE, MIN.HC SIGNSHCSIGNS176 BEDROOMSRESTAURANT (C) (5,050 sq. ft.)MEDICAL CLINIC (B) (7,140 sq. ft.)GRAND TOTAL176 SPACES84.2 SPACES36 SPACESCOMMERCIAL SUB TOTAL136.7177103280COMMERCIAL (A.1 & A.2) (4,204 sq. ft.) 16.8 SPACES3333317675.832.129912315.13131(20)(19)VARIES, SEE CIVILGRADING PLANSEGMENTALRETAININGWALLPAINTEDALUMINUMGUARD RAILASPHALTDRIVECONCRETECURBCOMPACTEDFILLFREEDRAININGFILLREBARANCHORBOLTCONCRETELIGHT POLEBASE PLATEGRADE/PAVINGSEE LIGHT MFR.FOR SIDES &DEPTHA11/16" = 1'-0"ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANAS100Copyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATEIssue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANMSCheckerEXCELSIOR AND FRANCE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MNThe Ellipse on Excelsior03.06.200908-0089.0CLIENTBADER DEVELOPMENT5402 PARKDALE DRIVESUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 SECOND AVE SHOPKINS, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULT. INC.26 EDMUNTON STREETWINNEPEG, MA, R3C, 1P7CANADALANDSCAPE ARCHITECTDAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES923 NICOLLET MALLMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402CIVIL ENGINEERMFRA14800 28TH AVE NORTHSUITE 140PLYMOUTH , MN 5544712-23-2008HUD 90% SET1-28-2009HUD REVISED 90% SET3-06-2009100% HUD /PERMIT SETDEAN DOVOLIS174143-06-09E51/4" = 1'-0"SECTION: RETAINING WALLE5.21/4" = 1'-0"LIGHT POLE BASE5-01-2009REV. A - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS5-17-2010PARKING VARIANCE - REV 36-25-2010PARKING VARIANCE - REV 4City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior BlvdPage 28
Staff Report on Overflow Parking Agreement with Bader Development
TITLE:
Proposed Agreement with Bader Development (specifically, Ellipse on Excelsior LLC) for the
provision of temporary, overflow customer parking on the former American Inn property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is intended to apprise the EDA and City Council on a proposed agreement with Bader
Development to allow temporary use of the former American Inn property to accommodate
overflow customer parking related to the opening of the commercial tenants at the Ellipse on
Excelsior.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA/City Council support the proposed terms that would form the basis for an agreement
with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC for the use of EDA Property for overflow customer parking?
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2009 the EDA and Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (“Redeveloper”) entered into a
Redevelopment Contract in which the EDA pledged Available Tax Increment to reimburse the
Redeveloper for certain extraordinary costs in connection with the development of a mixed-use retail
and residential facility known as the Ellipse on Excelsior.
On November 12, 2009 the EDA purchased the property next door located at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard (“former American Inn property” and now “EDA Property”) with the intent to redevelop
the property.
On April 19, 2010, the EDA and Redeveloper entered into a First Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract in which the EDA granted to the Rede veloper the temporary use of the EDA Property
solely for customer parking purposes related to the Redeveloper’s marketing of the Ellipse project.
Such parking was authorized from May 1 through September 1, 2010.
Recently, Bader Development has sought approval for a restaurant to lease space within the Ellipse
project. Bader had a parking study conducted which concluded there should be sufficient parking
spaces on-site to accommodate the customers of the project’s commercial tenants. To ensure there is
adequate customer parking for these tenants, especially as they have their grand openings, Bader has
requested use of the EDA’s Property for the purpose of overflow customer parking should it prove
necessary. Such an agreement would be for an interim period only and would require formal
approval of the EDA.
Terms for a proposed Second Amendment
The following terms and conditions have been negotiated with Bader Development relative to the
use of the EDA’s Property and would form the basis for a Second Amendment to the
Redevelopment Contract with the Redeveloper.
1. The EDA agrees to grant to the Redeveloper a license for the temporary use of the EDA
Property solely for overflow customer parking purposes related to the opening of the
commercial tenants within the Ellipse on Excelsior project (the “Overflow Use”). Such
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 29
Overflow Use is authorized for the initial term of September 1, 2010 to September 1, 2011.
In return for the use of the Property during this initial term Redeveloper agrees to pay the
EDA a fee of $3,000. Payment of the fee shall be made one week prior to the opening of the
largest commercial tenant within the project.
2. During the initial term Redeveloper shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Property
including snow removal as necessary. Any needed repairs to the Property will be the
responsibility of the EDA.
3. At the conclusion of the initial term, the Redeveloper may request use of the Property for
Overflow Use on a daily basis for $100 per day or on a month-to-month basis for $500 per
month. Approval of such requests by the EDA may not be reasonably withheld. No later
than seven (7) days prior to the use of the Property or the first day of each month during
which the Overflow Parking is authorized, the Redeveloper shall pay the EDA the
designated fee.
4. In the event Redeveloper requests usage of the Property on a month-to-month basis
following the initial term such authorization shall be renewed each month without formal
action of the parties. Annual extensions for use of the Property may be granted for up to
three years upon written request from the Redeveloper.
5. In the event Redeveloper chooses to use the subject Property on a monthly basis,
Redeveloper shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Property including snow
removal. The parties understand that at all other times the Property will not be maintained
by either the EDA or the City. Any needed repairs to the Property will be the responsibility
of the EDA.
6. The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that parking is prohibited over any
areas constituting the footprint of the former motel building on the Property.
7. The Redeveloper would be responsible for the installation of proper signage indicating
where the public can and cannot park on the Property and that no overnight parking is
allowed.
8. The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that at least one parking stall be
designated for handicapped persons on the Property.
9. The EDA may terminate its agreement with the Redeveloper for use of the Property with 30
days written notice.
10. The Redeveloper shall indemnify the EDA for any claims arising from the use of the EDA’s
Property.
Next Steps
If the terms of the lease are acceptable, staff will have a Second Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract drafted. Such an amendment would be scheduled for EDA consideration on September 7th.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 30
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Bader Development has requested use of the EDA’s Property located at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard for
the purpose of overflow customer parking from September 1, 2010 to September 1, 2011. In return
for the use of the property, during this period Bader agrees to pay the EDA a fee of $3,000.
Following this initial term the Redeveloper would have the option of using the Property for $100 a
day or $500 a month.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This proposal is consistent with the Strategic Direction of making a connected and engaged
community.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment - 3900 Excelsior Blvd Page 31
Meeting Date: August 16, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit application for in-vehicle sales and
service for property located at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approved or deny the request for in-vehicle (drive-through) sales and
service at the Dairy Queen Grill & Chill, 5001 Excelsior Boulevard?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for in-vehicle (drive-through)
sales/service at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard. The in-vehicle sales/service would be offered by Dairy
Queen, the existing restaurant on the site. The restaurant use is permitted in the C-2 Zoning
District; a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for drive-through service.
The drive-through service lane is proposed to circle the building from west to east around the rear of
the building, with the pick-up window on the east side of the building (see proposed site plan).
Because the building is located almost directly on the east property line, the drive-through would be
located on the adjacent property (Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site – 4995 Excelsior Boulevard). According
to the applicant, the only building modification necessary would be the addition of a service
window. Vehicles attempting to reach the drive-through would do so via the driveway between DQ
and Miracle Mile or the Miracle Mile parking lot. Vehicles would exit the drive-through via the
driveway between DQ and the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site and turn right onto Excelsior Boulevard.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2010; there were nine residents in attendance with a
variety of questions about the application. Further synopsis of the neighborhood meeting is provided
below.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the request on June 16, 2010. There
were four residents present to speak at the public hearing; two in favor, and two opposed. Several
correspondence items were also provided. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
application. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting and the correspondence received by
the City regarding this application are attached.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
CUP Process:
A Conditional Use is a use allowed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance with a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). A public hearing is required for all CUP requests, with property owners within 350 feet
notified in writing of the hearing.
Conditional uses may be allowed by the city if the conditions listed in the ordinance are met, and if
“the structure and land use conform to the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing
neighborhood.” Additional conditions required by the C-2 zoning district are addressed below.
Site Background:
Dairy Queen has been located at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard since 2004, when the building was last
renovated. The 4,400 square foot Dairy Queen building has previously housed other restaurants
and retail operations, and was originally constructed in 1949; at that time, the building was a local
bank. The Dairy Queen (“DQ”) offers customers interior service only, and has 106 seats available in
the restaurant, per the building plans submitted in 2004.
The DQ property is located between the Miracle Mile building (5201 Excelsior Boulevard “5201”)
and the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building (4995 Excelsior Boulevard, “4995”). The Miracle Mile and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol properties are covered under a single Special Use Permit, last amended in
2006. The DQ property is not part of the Special Use Permit, although all three properties (4995,
5001, and 5201 Excelsior Boulevard) are under the same ownership, based on property tax records.
This application applies only to the DQ property, yet the proposed DQ drive-through would be
located partially on the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol property, an issue discussed in greater detail below.
Additionally, the application would impact circulation and parking on the adjacent 4995 and 5201
properties which are subject to a Special Use Permit. An application to amend the Special Use
Permit was not submitted as part of the DQ drive-through application.
In 2003, Wendy’s International, Inc., applied for a complete redevelopment of the site, including a
new building with a drive-through service window (Planning Case No. 03-03-CUP). That
application differed substantially from the current application. It included the removal of the
existing building and modifications to the site, which would have been redesigned to reflect the
needs of a Wendy’s fast food restaurant. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
Wendy’s application, and the City Council adopted a Resolution of Denial for the application on
June 2nd, 2003. The site plan from the 2003 application has been included as reference material in
the attachments.
Traffic Study and Circulation Analysis:
A traffic study for the proposed drive-through use was completed by SRF Consulting Group. The
study analyzed five intersections on Excelsior Blvd. and also site access and circulation. The study is
attached; the findings are summarized as follows:
• Existing levels of service are acceptable at LOS C or better
• Future levels of service are acceptable at LOS C or better
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
• Most customers would be expected to use right-in/right-out driveway on the west side of
Dairy Queen
• Drive-through customers would exit on the east side of Dairy Queen
• The east drive way would need to become “exit only” if approved; in-bound customer or
delivery traffic would not be allowed for DQ or Pannekoeken/Baja Sol
• Drive-through customers who want to travel west on Excelsior Blvd. would have to make a
u-turn on Excelsior at Quentin Avenue South; this should be monitored if the drive-through
is approved; if u-turns become a problem, it may be necessary to work with a traffic engineer
to make modifications to the intersection or prohibit u-turns
• Increased traffic will occur on the internal roadway system
• If low vehicle speeds are maintained on the site, pedestrians should not experience difficulty
walking to the restaurant
Zoning Conformance:
The changes proposed for the DQ site include the addition of a drive-through lane to the rear of the
building, new landscaping associated with the drive-through lane, and the loss of 12 off-street
parking spaces to accommodate the drive-through lane.
1. Location of Proposed Drive-Through Use
The components of the proposed drive-through use are not all located on the DQ parcel. Although
a portion of the required vehicle queuing and the ordering would take place on the DQ parcel, the
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol (4995) parcel would also be used for vehicle queuing and would be the sole
location for monetary transactions and the delivery of finished products. The Zoning Ordinance
does not permit the use of multiple lots for a single use, as specified in Section 36-115 (h):
(h) Full Compliance Necessary. Although a land use may be indicated as permitted by
right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as a conditional use in a particular district, it does not
follow that such a land use is permitted or permissible on every parcel in a particular use district. 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 which are applicable to the specific land use
and parcel in question, or unless an appropriate variance has been granted under section 36.34
(underline added).
City Attorney Tom Scott has written a letter on this issue (attached) that states in part, “A proposal
for a drive-thru facility that has the drive-thru lane located on the adjacent property does not comply
with the zoning ordinance. The drive-thru lane is a necessary component of the specific drive-thru
use itself and is not the same as general access to and from the property….the lot line would need to
be adjusted in order to expand the size of the lot to accommodate the drive-thru lane.”
In order to utilize the east side of this building for the drive-through window, the lot line would
have to be moved to the east. This could be accomplished by replatting the affected parcels and
adjusting the lots lines. A plat was not submitted with this application. Therefore there is not a way
for the city to evaluate if the lot line adjustment would be workable.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
In the interim between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant
submitted a draft access easement between the two properties. The draft easement is attached for
review. The City Attorney has reviewed the easement and concluded that it does not meet the
criteria of the Zoning Ordinance that the use be located on a single lot.
2. Off-Street Parking Requirement
Zoning Category Parking Requirement
Restaurant – 4,400 square feet 73 spaces
Outdoor Patio – 500 square feet Exempt – permitted accessory use
Outdoor Patio – 151 square feet 3 spaces
Subtotal 76 spaces
Transit reduction – 10% -8 spaces
Total requirement 64 spaces
Based on the analysis provided by the applicant, there are a total of 28 spaces currently available on
the DQ parcel. Construction of the drive-through would consume 12 of those spaces, leaving a total
of 16 available parking spaces.
Since the Planning Commission reviewed the application, the applicant submitted a draft easement
document that would potentially allow for use of parking on the adjacent Miracle Mile site. The
draft easement proposes shared parking and shared access across the Miracle Mile, Pannekoeken/Baja
Sol, and DQ properties. Shared parking is permitted by Section 36-361 (f) of the Zoning
Ordinance:
(f) Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to collectively provide parking in
any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The uses must have their highest peak demand for parking at substantially different times
of the day or week, or an adequate amount of parking shall be available for both uses
during shared hours of peak demand. A parking plan shall address the hours, size and
mode of operation of the respective uses.
(2) The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the
number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking.
(3) Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant running with the
land and recorded with the County in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days after approval of the agreement by the City Council.
However, the applicant has not submitted any information to support the conditions for granting
shared parking under 36-61(f) such as a parking plan, information concerning high peak demands
for all uses or the required irrevocable covenant; for this reason, it is not possible to evaluate the uses
in the Miracle Mile and the DQ use for shared parking. While it is possible that some of the spaces
in the Miracle Mile parking lot could be available for use by DQ customers, no such conclusion can
be made without a parking plan as specified in Section 36-361 (f)(1), and other information
necessary to determine whether shared parking as proposed by applicant meets the conditions for
required for approval.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
In response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting, the traffic consultant for the
applicant completed a review of parking demand for the proposed DQ drive-through use. The
findings cite a reduced demand for parking at the DQ site, despite an expected annual increase in
sales of approximately 33%. Despite the potential for decreased parking demand at the DQ
restaurant, the study concludes that future peak parking demand is between 32 and 44 vehicles – still
exceeding the amount of parking available on the DQ site.
As noted, customers could possibly use spaces on the adjacent lots based on the draft easement
provided. However, it is uncertain as to whether such spaces are available during peak times.
Additional analysis of parking requirements for the overall Miracle Mile center, showed an overall
parking deficit for the four properties (Miracle Mile, DQ, and Pannekoeken/Baja) of 184 spaces.
This deficit occurs despite a parking reduction of 10% for transit service on Excelsior Boulevard.
The parking analysis is attached for review.
Lacking information from applicant to support approval of shared parking, the DQ parcel is non-
conforming based on the number of current off-street parking spaces available. Reducing the
number of spaces available to construct a drive-through would exacerbate the situation, and be
considered as an expansion of a non-conformity which is not permitted under Section 36-404 (3) of
the Zoning Ordinance:
(3) Expansion prohibited. A nonconformity shall not be expanded in any manner. Expansion
includes the intensification of the character or operation of a nonconformity. Expansion
shall include, but not be limited to, increased hours of operation, expansion of the use to a
portion of the property not previously used, reducing the size of the parcel containing the
nonconformity by subdivision or administrative lot line adjustment, expansion of a parking
area and increased number of employees.
3. Noise and Hours of Operation
The proposed drive-through use would generate noise through the use of an outdoor speaker.
However, it is not anticipated that the noise would exceed the limits found in the City Code, which
allows for a maximum of 65 decibels at adjacent or nearby residential property lines from 7:00 AM
to 10:00 PM or a maximum of 55 decibels at adjacent or nearby residential property lines from
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
The application did not provide any information pertaining to the proposed hours of operation for
the drive-through. However, it would be expected that the drive-through would conform to the
current hours of operation for the DQ store. Those hours are 10:30 AM to 9:30 PM, Sunday
through Thursday, and 10:30 AM to 10:00 or 10:30 PM on Friday and Saturday.
4. Pedestrian Access
The Zoning Ordinance requires pedestrian access between the right-of-way and the primary
entrance to buildings in the C-2 Zoning District, as well as pedestrian access between the parking lot
and the primary entrance. Section 36-192 (12) states:
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
(12) A separate pedestrian access shall be provided between the principal building and the
public street or a public trail, on all sides of the lot which front on a public right-of-way or
public trail. This access shall be separated from parking areas by curbed, landscaped
islands which have a minimum width of 20 feet inclusive of sidewalk. If a transit stop is
located on any adjacent public street, access shall be located convenient to that transit
stop.
Section 36-361 (k) (6) states:
(6) Walkways. Required parking areas for six or more vehicles shall have walkways separated
from the parking area and surfaced with bituminous asphalt, pavers, or concrete to provide
access from parking areas to the entrances of buildings.
The issue of pedestrian access was discussed by the Planning Commission. The applicant
subsequently provided additional details about how pedestrian activity could be accommodated
(attached). The proposal relies on painted markings on existing pavement. As depicted, the
proposal provides an indirect and inconvenient route from the DQ on-site parking to the building
entrance, making it unlikely that pedestrians will use it to access the building. Pedestrians are more
likely to take a straight-line route to the door, crossing auto traffic and the drive-through lane. This
adds to the mixing of auto and pedestrian traffic and increases the likelihood of pedestrian and
vehicle conflicts.
Pedestrian access from Excelsior Boulevard is also difficult. Pedestrians walking from the sidewalk
on Excelsior Boulevard must currently travel into the drive-aisle of the parking lot to reach the
building. The proposed 33% increase in business resulting from the construction of a drive-through
will further exacerbate the existing pedestrian conditions on the site.
5. Deliveries
At the current time, deliveries take place at the rear of the DQ building. Though the drive-through
structure will impede access to the delivery door, the applicant has stated that deliveries can be
scheduled at times when the drive-through is closed.
There were a number of concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting related to impacts to
deliveries for the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building resulting from the new drive-through structure and
lane. Deliveries for these businesses currently occur in the drive aisle between the DQ and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building where the drive-through lane is proposed. The applicant provided
additional exhibits depicting the area and has stated that deliveries to these businesses will not be
impacted. The exhibits, attached, show the width of the DQ drive-through (about eight feet) and
the space remaining for trucks serving the other two businesses (about 16 feet).
Deliveries will impact the circulation in the DQ parking lot and the adjacent Miracle Mile parking
lot at 5201 Excelsior Boulevard; however, information provided by the applicant shows that the
intent is to minimize impacts to business operations through scheduling and appropriate
management of deliveries.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
6. Outdoor Seating
Outdoor seating at the DQ is a permitted accessory use up to a maximum of 500 square feet. The
DQ outdoor seating area is approximately 651 square feet in size. For this reason, 500 square feet of
the outdoor seating area is exempt from the off-street parking restrictions.
The outdoor seating area meets all conditions for such a use. The proposed drive-through will not
directly impact the outdoor seating area. The drive-through will indirectly impact the outdoor
seating area by increasing the number of vehicle trips passing by, and by decreasing the accessibility
of the outdoor seating area by pedestrians and bicyclists.
7. Landscaping and Screening
The landscaping requirement for the DQ parcel is 17 trees and 102 shrubs. The existing use is non-
conforming for landscaping. The proposed drive-through is an intensification of the use on the site,
and should come into greater compliance for landscaping; in an effort to do so, the application
includes a proposal to add ten new juniper shrubs to the site. The addition of the new shrubs would
result in a total of two trees and 33 shrubs on the site.
The application does not demonstrate how additional landscaping could be provided without further
increasing the existing off-street parking non-conformity on the site. Because the site is almost
100% impervious cover, and because it is fully used for parking, building, drive lanes, and the
outdoor patio, it is not currently possible to address the landscaping non-conformity. The loss of
additional parking spaces on the site for the construction of the drive-through makes it unlikely that
the landscaping non-conformity could be improved in the future, precluding the installation of
required landscaping such as parking lot islands or required screening.
8. Setbacks
As noted above, the proposed drive-through lane and operation would be located on two separate
properties, which has been reviewed and is non-compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. This matter
aside, the building itself is conforming to the setback requirements of the C-2 Zoning District. The
C-2 district allows for a zero lot line in the side yard and the rear yard, and a five-foot setback in the
front yard. The DQ building is located immediately adjacent to the east (side) property line, and
exceeds the yard requirements for the south, west and north sides of the building.
9. Architectural Materials
The existing DQ building meets the architectural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
building features glass, stone, and some stucco to comply with the requirements for 60% Class I
materials. The proposed drive-through would result in the installation of additional glass on the
building, increasing the coverage by Class I materials.
10. Signage
Drive-through signage is included in the total amount of signage permitted for any given parcel. At
24,500 square feet, the parcel is permitted a maximum of 250 square feet of signage based on the
sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The installation of any new signage would require a sign
permit, including an inventory of all existing signage on the site.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements:
In-vehicle (drive-through) sales/service requires a Conditional Use Permit in the C-2 Zoning
District. The analysis below includes a detailed review of the conditions for this use set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Drive-through in the C-2 Zoning District (36-194 (d)(11)):
1. Drive-though facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any parcel
that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.
The proposed drive-through facility is located approximately 200 feet from the residential lots to
the south, meeting this condition.
2. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all
yard requirements.
The application includes one customer service point. Stacking is available for four vehicles on
the DQ parcel and for three vehicles on the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol (4995) parcel, for a total of
seven available stacking spaces. The application references only the DQ parcel; for this reason,
only those stacking spaces available on the DQ parcel can be counted toward the available
stacking. This requirement is therefore not met.
3. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not
have a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent streets and
intersections.
The traffic study indicates that the addition of a drive-through will not impact the levels of
service on the adjacent streets and intersections, assuming there are few u-turns generated as a
result of the drive-through location.
4. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or
vehicular conflicts.
The drive-through facility impedes vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement and exacerbates
the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts on the DQ parcel, on the Pannekoeken/Baja
Sol (4995) and on the Miracle Mile (5201) parcel by:
• Increasing automobile traffic for all of the parcels that contain Miracle Mile, DQ and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol
• Adding traffic for the drive-through will increase traffic conflicts on the west drive
between DQ and Miracle Mile
• Changing the use of the east drive between DQ and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol to exit only
• Exacerbating the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts in several locations,
including:
− the DQ parking lot and the building entrance would be separated by the drive-
through requiring pedestrians to cross more traffic to enter the store
− the sidewalk on Excelsior Boulevard and the building entrance
− pedestrian and bicycle passersby on Excelsior Boulevard and its adjacent sidewalk.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
• Creating a greater need for U-turns on Excelsior Boulevard, which may be difficult for
pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles to anticipate or navigate around
5. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial.
Excelsior Boulevard is classified as an “A Minor Augmentor” in the Comprehensive Plan,
meeting this condition.
6. Any canopy shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the
principal structure.
No canopy structure has been proposed as part of the drive-through application.
7. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the
redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in
which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this
requirement.
The use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Park Commons
area of the City, where major redevelopment efforts have prioritized pedestrian accessibility and a
walkable town center. Page IV-B20 of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan states:
Future redevelopment of the Park Commons area should focus on adding complementary
land uses that support and complete the “town center” concept and completing the internal
network of streets and pathways that create a cohesive and connected downtown
neighborhood.
The use does not emphasize pedestrian connections and safety as outlined in the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. From page IV-B21, Goal 1, Policy 1A:
Policy 1-A: Establish unique and cohesive street character for major community streets, such
as Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, and Louisiana Avenue,
emphasizing pedestrian connections and safety, landscaping, decorative lighting, and street
furniture for the use and enjoyment of the public.
The use does not minimize traffic conflicts as noted in the goals and policies for commercial
corridors within the community. From Page IV-B22, Goal 2, Policies 2A and 2B:
Policy 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor development
using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering.
Policy 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential areas.
General CUP requirements (Section 36-365 (b):
1. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use
designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation
strategies of the comprehensive plan.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
The proposed drive-through is not consistent with or supportive of important principles of
the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those relating to the Park Commons area as a
“walkable” area.
2. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community
as a whole.
The proposed drive-through will have a negative impact on the pedestrian environment of
Excelsior Boulevard. A fast-food drive-through has different characteristics than other drive-
through uses, such as a bank drive-through or a pharmacy drive-through. Fast-food drive-
through uses encourage a greater number of automobile trips, making pedestrian movements
more difficult and less safe.
3. It is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the zoning district in
which the conditional use is located.
The use does not meet the standard Conditional Use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for a drive-through use in the C-2 Zoning District (see previous section).
4. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The use will have the adverse impact of adding to the number of U-turn traffic movements
on Excelsior Boulevard for west bound traffic.
5. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close
proximity to the conditional use.
The use will have an undue adverse impact on the accessibility of properties in close
proximity to the proposed conditional use, for the following reasons:
• Auto traffic and congestion will increase in the area, both within the DQ, Miracle
Mile and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol sites.
• Driveway access to the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site would be restricted to the east side
of the building.
• Pedestrian activity will be negatively impacted to and from the DQ and adjacent
properties.
• Noise impacts may result from idling cards, car stereos, and other automotive-
oriented causes.
6. It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared
by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer
registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
city council.
The plans were prepared by a professional architect and civil engineer.
7. It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for city water, sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other
service facilities.
Utility plans are not expected to be affected by this proposal.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
8. It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use
permit when, in the opinion of the city council, such additional conditions are
necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety, and neighborhood character.
Additional conditions could be added with approval of a drive-through, such as hours of
operation or delivery times.
Neighborhood Meeting:
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, the developer held a neighborhood meeting. Nine neighbors
attended. Question and comments surrounded the reasons for wanting a drive-through – answer:
store is one of two out of 60 without a drive-through and is currently losing money; speaker volume
– answer: it would typically would be at a conversation level; additional lighting – answer one 5’
light would be added; hours of operation – answer: 10:30 am to 9:30 pm in winter and 10:30 am to
10:00 or 10:30 pm in summer; community involvement of DQ – answer: little league, churches
Parktacular, Half price books, etc.
Neighbors commented that they did not want the drive through; were worried about people in the
parking lot making noise and leaving trash; worried about additional traffic and pedestrian safety;
concern that other restaurants in the area would want a drive-through too, and this is not what is
wanted for the area.
Summary of Issues:
The Planning Commission and Staff recommendation is based on the merits of the following major
issues identified while reviewing the Conditional Use Permit application:
1. The proposed use is not located solely on the lot under consideration as part of this application.
The drive-through land and operation would occur on the parcel to the east (Pannekoeken/Baja
Sol – 4995 Excelsior Blvd). The Zoning Ordinance does not permit the use of multiple lots for
a single use, as specified in Section 36-115 (h).
2. The proposed use does not comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for on-site parking,
which requires 76 spaces; 16 spaces are provided on the site. The application did not include a
parking plan. The lack of available proximate legal parking could increase the likelihood that
customers will park in drive aisles, fire lanes and other areas not expressly set aside for customers,
causing traffic problems.
3. The DQ parcel is non-conforming based on the number of current off-street parking spaces
available. Reducing the number of spaces available to construct a drive-through would
exacerbate the situation, and be considered as an expansion of a non-conformity which is not
permitted under Section 36-404 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance condition requiring drive-
through to be designed in order to not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic
movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflict. It is expected there
will be increased traffic on the site and increased conflicts for vehicles and pedestrians within the
DQ and adjoining sites.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
5. The DQ parcel is non-conforming based on the number of trees and shrubs provided on-site,
based on the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the size and layout
of the site, the construction of the proposed in-vehicle sales/service would further reduce the
possibility for bringing the site into compliance with landscaping regulations in the future.
6. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance finding that it
is consistent with and supportive of the principles, goals, objectives, land use designations,
redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Park Commons Area being a walkable area, emphasizing
pedestrian connections and safety and minimizing traffic conflicts;
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Draft Planning Commission Minutes – June 16, 2010
Location Map
Letter from City Attorney Tom Scott
SRF Traffic Study
Correspondence and other attachments from applicant
DQ Site Plan and related documents
Miracle Mile Area Parking Analysis
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
RESOLUTION NO. 10-________
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
DRF G & C, LLC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-
194(d)(11) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ZONING CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
PERMIT IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE (DRIVE-THROUGH USE) FOR
PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 5001 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. DRF G&G, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-194(d)(11) of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code for the purpose of permitting in-
vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) within a C-2 General Commercial District located at
5001 Excelsior Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to wit:
That part of Section 7, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the Fourth Principal
Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the center line of
Excelsior Avenue distance 901 feet Northeasterly along said center line from its
intersection with the center line of Wooddale Avenue; thence Southeasterly at right
angles to said center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance of 350 feet; thence
Southwesterly parallel with said center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance of 70 feet;
thence Northwesterly a distance of 350 feet to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Avenue distant 70 feet Southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence
Northeasterly to the point of beginning. Together with benefit of an easement for
egress (not ingress) as set forth in deed filed as Document No. 2588026.
2. On June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from
the public, discussed the application, and on a vote of 7-0 moved that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the proposed conditional use permit.
3. The City Council has reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable
performance standards, general conditions and specific conditions, considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 10-18-CUP) and the effect of the
proposed in-vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) on the health, safety and welfare of the
occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic, parking and pedestrian
conditions, the effect on the use, enjoyment and values of properties in the surrounding area,
conformance with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and finds the following:
a. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirement that a land use must be located on a single parcel in full compliance with all
of the standards and regulations of this chapter (Section 36-115(h)) for the following
reasons:
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
i. The proposed drive-through lane and use would not be located wholly on the
same parcel as the Dairy Queen.
ii. The drive-through lane is a necessary component of the specific drive-through
use and is not the same as general access to and from the property.
b. The proposed modifications do not comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for
off-street parking (Section 36-361(Table A)) for the following reasons:
i. The off-street parking requirement for the Dairy Queen restaurant is 76 spaces;
ii. There are currently 28 off-street parking spaces available on the Dairy Queen
site, causing the restaurant to be legally non-conforming in relation to the off-
street parking requirements;
iii. The construction of the in-vehicle sales/service facility will result in the loss of 12
off-street parking spaces, resulting in 16 off-street parking spaces available for
customers and employees and increasing the non-conformity related to parking;
iv. City Code Section 36-404 (4) states, “A nonconformity shall not be expanded in
any manner.”
v. Due to a lack of available off-street parking, there is an increased likelihood that
Dairy Queen customers will park in drive aisles, fire lanes, and other areas not
expressly set aside for customers.
c. The proposed modifications do not qualify for shared parking based on the Zoning
Ordinance criteria for shared parking (Section 36-361 (f)) for the following reasons:
i. No parking plan addressing peak parking demand for the Dairy Queen
restaurant or the Miracle Mile shopping center was submitted as part of the
application for the in-vehicle sales/service use;
ii. Applicant failed to submit other information necessary to determine if the
conditions for shared parking are met, including information concerning the
days and times for highest peak parking demands for each use proposed for
shared parking;
iii. Even if a shared parking plan had been submitted for Dairy Queen parking on
the Miracle Mile property (the nearest proximate parking area), it is unlikely that
the parking plan would meet ordinance criteria. Based on the limited available
information on peak parking demand, it is not reasonable to conclude that the
highest peak parking demand at the Dairy Queen restaurant and the retail stores
in the east side of the Miracle Mile shopping center occurs at substantially
different times of the day or week.
d. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
condition requiring the drive-through to be designed so it does not impede traffic or
impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for
pedestrian and vehicular conflict (Sec. 36-194(d)(11)(d)) for the following reasons:
i. The traffic analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that the total annual
transactions at the Dairy Queen restaurant will increase by 33% if the in-vehicle
service is approved;
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
ii. Vehicular entry to the drive-through from the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard
and Park Center Boulevard will require customers to travel through the Miracle
Mile parking lot before ordering, increasing traffic in the Miracle Mile parking
lot;
iii. An increase in vehicular traffic in the Miracle Mile parking lot will impair
pedestrian traffic movement and exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts within the parking lot;
iv. An increase in vehicular traffic entering the Dairy Queen site via the right-
in/right-out access immediately west of the building will impair pedestrian traffic
movement and exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts
along Excelsior Boulevard and on the Dairy Queen site;
v. An increase in eastbound to westbound u-turn movements on Excelsior
Boulevard at the intersection of Quentin Avenue will increase the difficulty for
pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles in navigating Excelsior Boulevard;
vi. Proposed pedestrian routes within the Dairy Queen site, including the use of
painted lines to delineate pedestrian safety zones, show an indirect and
inconvenient route from the Dairy Queen on-site parking to the building
entrance, making it unlikely that pedestrians will use it to access the building.
Pedestrians are more likely to take a straight-line route to the door, crossing auto
traffic. This adds to the mixing of auto and pedestrian traffic and increases the
likelihood of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
e. The existing site does not meet the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 36-364 (d)) and is legally non-conforming in this regard. The proposed in-
vehicle sales/service would increase the intensity of the non-conforming use on the site
without addressing this non-conformity, which is prohibited by the City Code (Section
36-404 (3)). Furthermore, the application does not demonstrate how landscaping could
be provided without reducing the existing off-street parking on the site, based on the
following:
i. There are currently two trees and 33 shrubs on the site;
ii. The Zoning Ordinance requirement is for 17 trees and 102 shrubs.
f. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the minimum Zoning
Ordinance requirement for vehicle stacking (Section 36-194 (d)(11)(b)) for the following
reason:
i. Stacking is only available for 4 vehicles on the site at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard;
ii. The remainder of the required stacking is proposed on the adjacent property.
g. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the general Zoning
Ordinance requirements for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (Section 36-365
(b)) for the following reasons:
i. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service is not consistent with or supportive of
important principles of the Comprehensive Plan;
ii. The proposed drive-through will have a negative impact on the pedestrian
environment of Excelsior Boulevard;
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
iii. The use does not meet the standard Conditional Use requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for an in-vehicle sales/service use in the C-2 Zoning District;
iv. The use will have the adverse impact of adding to the number of U-turn traffic
movements on Excelsior Boulevard for west bound traffic;
v. The use will have the adverse impact of negatively affecting the accessibility of
properties in close proximity to the proposed conditional use, for the following
reasons:
a. Auto traffic and congestion will increase in the area, both within the Dairy
Queen, Miracle Mile and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol sites;
b. Driveway access to the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site would be limited to the
east side of the building, with the west side access becoming an exit-only;
c. Pedestrian activity will be negatively impacted to and from the DQ and
adjacent properties;
d. Noise impacts may result from idling cards, car stereos, and other vehicle-
related noise sources.
h. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirement that the use be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies (Section
36-194 (d)(11)(g)) for the following reasons:
i. The use is not consistent with the Land Use Chapter goals for this area (Park
Commons) to improve pedestrian accessibility and create a walkable town center.
Page IV-B20 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Future redevelopment of the
Park Commons area should focus on adding complementary land uses that
support and complete the “town center” concept and completing the internal
network of streets and pathways that create a cohesive and connected downtown
neighborhood.” The proposed pathways internal to the DQ site do not provide
pedestrian access from Excelsior Boulevard nor a direct, useful route for
pedestrians trying to reach the building entrance.
ii. The use is not consistent with goals for pedestrian connections and safety as
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including Goal 1, Policy 1A (page IV-B21):
Establish unique and cohesive street character for major community streets, such
as Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, and Louisiana
Avenue, emphasizing pedestrian connections and safety, landscaping, decorative
lighting, and street furniture for the use and enjoyment of the public.
iii. The use does not minimize traffic conflicts as noted in the goals and policies for
commercial corridors within the community as provided at Page IV-B22, Goal 2,
Policies 2A and 2B of the Comprehensive Plan:
a. 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor
development using design, performance standards, site planning techniques,
and buffering.
b. 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential
areas.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
iv. The expansion of the restaurant with a drive-through use is not consistent with
the Plan by Neighborhood Chapter development guidelines prohibiting car
washes and similar heavier commercial uses in this area (Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood Plan, Adopted May 17, 1999).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 10-18-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit in-vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) at the location
described is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit in-vehicle sales or service
(drive-through use) is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Excerpts – Official Minutes
Planning Commission
June 16, 2010
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.
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
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 22
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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
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.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 23
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 24
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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 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.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 25
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
EXCELSIO
R
B
L
V
D
QUENTIN AVE S40TH ST WPARK NICOLLET BLVDVALLACH
E
R
A
V
EPRINCE
TON
AVE
S
PARK COMMONS DR
EXCELSI
O
R
BL
V
D
5001 Excelsior Boulevard - Dairy Queen Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Sales
June 16, 2010
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
210 Feet
O
R-2
C-1
R-2C-2
C-2
MX
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 26
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 27
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 28
SRF No. 010 7161
MEMORANDUM
TO: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Adam Fulton, AICP, Planner
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FROM: Craig Vaughn, P.E., PTOE, Senior Associate
John Hagen, P.E., PTOE, Senior Associate
DATE: June 11, 2010
SUBJECT: DAIRY QUEEN TRAFFIC STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As requested, we have completed a traffic study for the proposed drive-thru addition to the
existing Dairy Queen restaurant in the Miracle Mile shopping center in the southeast quadrant of
Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main
objective of this study is to analyze existing and future (one year after completion) traffic
operations to determine potential impacts related to the proposed drive-thru operations. A key
component of this study will be site circulation (across the Miracle Mile development) and how
the drive-thru operations may impact this circulation.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The purpose of the traffic analysis is to determine the traffic impacts at the key intersections and
driveways within the study segment of Excelsior Boulevard, related to the proposed drive-thru
addition to the existing Dairy Queen restaurant. This includes an operations analysis during the
p.m. peak hour of the adjacent streets for existing and future year 2011 build conditions (one
year after construction of the drive-thru). A site access and circulation analysis was also
conducted.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 29
Syr.
R.
C. P.
C. P. R
.
S
y
s
.
W.
W.
W.
ST .ST.
37
DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.HUNTIN GTONAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.W.44th
ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
W.37th ST.
W.39th ST.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.
AVE.XENWOODBROOKSIDEBRUNSWICKCOLORADOAVE.AVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.
M EA
D
OWBROOKBLVD.DAKOTAAVE.W. 39th ST.
ST.DAKOTAAVE.W.35th
ST.AVE.COLORA DOLYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.EDGEWOODAVE.VER MONT
39th39th
11.BELT LINEBLVD.BLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
V ALLAC
H
E
R
AVE.PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.CA MBRI DGE AVE.WOOLI
B
R
A
R
Y
LA
.HAMPSHIREAVE.LOUISIANAAVE.40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W. 41st ST.
W.41 st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
O
R
W. 39 th
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.E.CLETO WNES
CIR.RD.KSAVE.AVE.BLVD.RD.AVE.LA.NORTHAVE.DIVISION ST.
12.CIRVORKDGE ST.B RIDGEAVE.W.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.EATONCURVEWOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.W.33 ST.XENWOODYOSEMITEZARTHANAVE.AVE.34 ST.LAKEBRUNSWICKEDGE33 ST.GEORGIAA
V
E
.
ST.
L
A
.
PA RK GLEN
R
D
.BELTLINEBLVD.rd
th
rd
stW. 34th ST.
RANDA
L
L
HUNTINGTON AVE.3
25
100
7
107161
June 2010
Project Location
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 1NORTHNorthPROJECT
LOCATION
H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 1_location.cdrCity Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 30
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 3 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
Existing Conditions
Traffic operations for existing conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections:
1. Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard
2. Right-In/Right-Out West Access and Excelsior Boulevard
3. Right-In/Right-Out East Access and Excelsior Boulevard
4. Full Access and Excelsior Boulevard
5. Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
Current traffic controls include signalization at the Excelsior Boulevard intersections of Miracle
Mile and Quentin Avenue. The remaining three key intersections (site access driveways)
analyzed as part of this study, are side-street stop-controlled. SRF Consulting Group conducted
turning movement counts during the p.m. peak hour at the three site access driveways. Counts
for the Excelsior Boulevard intersections of Miracle Mile and Quentin Avenue were conducted
in June 2009 by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Figure 2 displays the
existing intersection geometrics and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes.
It should be noted that the p.m. peak hour was selected as the desired analysis timeframe since
previous studies of the Miracle Mile shopping center determined it to represent the worst-case
scenario from a traffic analysis standpoint, since more vehicles use both Excelsior Boulevard and
the Miracle Mile shopping center driveways during the p.m. peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) than
other peak periods on an average weekday.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the p.m. peak hour at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. Signalized
intersections were analyzed using Synchro with the SimTraffic software. Unsignalized
intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results
identify a Level of Service (LOS) that indicates the quality of traffic flow through an
intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D
are generally considered acceptable by drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating
at, or very near its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 31
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
W.
ST.DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
37th ST.
W.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.XENWOODBROOKSIDEAVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.LYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.VER MONT
39thBELT LINEBLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
VALLA
C
H
E
R
AV E .PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.MBRI DGE AVE.WOO40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W.st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
OR
W. 39t
h
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.3
100NORTHNorth
68
851
53
0
883
9
0
33
729
50
136
978
132
4
20
1139
9
20
76
968
68 11917101 6603 741828 81 1535 2 010 37 1315
955
955
1170
1
1108
6 2 63 LEGEND
XX = P.M. Peak Hour
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Control 17 107161
June 2010
Existing Conditions
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 2H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 2_existing.cdrCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Quentin AvenueCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Full AccessPark Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)
CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceRight-In/Right-Out West AccessCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Miracle MileRight-In/Right-Out East Access1
3
2
4
5
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 32
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 5 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections currently operate at an
acceptable LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour. It is important to note that existing signal
timing, obtained from Hennepin County, was used for the signalized intersections.
Table 1
Existing P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service
P.M. Peak
(1) Miracle Mile/Excelsior Boulevard C
(2) Right-In/Right-Out West Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/B
(3) Right-In/Right-Out East Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/A
(4) Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/C
(5) Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard B
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst
approach LOS.
In addition to the level of service results identified for each of the key intersections, other field
observations related to current peak hour operations along Excelsior Boulevard are important
to note. Approximately 20 percent of the eastbound left-turn movements at the Full
Access/Excelsior Boulevard (four vehicles) and Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard (20
vehicles) intersections are currently making u-turns. The capacity analysis results identified in
Table 1 reflect this condition.
A review of the existing turning movement counts indicate that there was only one eastbound
right-turn movement into and two right-turn movements out of the right-in/right-out east access
driveway during the evening peak hour. In addition, there was very little traffic using the full-
access driveway during the evening peak hour. The opportunity to revise the existing access
driveways will be discussed later in this memorandum.
Proposed Development
The proposed drive-thru is to be constructed on the south and east sides of the existing Dairy
Queen restaurant. A detailed layout of the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3. As shown in
Figure 3, the proposed drive-thru will eliminate twelve parking spaces just south of the existing
building. Other than the proposed drive-thru, the existing Dairy Queen restaurant will not be
expanded beyond its current building.
The development has proposed to use the existing site driveways for primary access to/from the
restaurant. The primary access points along Excelsior Boulevard include Miracle Mile, the right-
in/right-out west access and the right-in/right-out east access (which is proposed to become a
right-out access only). Field observations of the existing traffic entering and exiting the site
revealed that the majority of the existing customers enter and exit using the right-in/right-out
west access.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 33
107161
June 2010
Site Plan
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 3H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 3_site plan.cdrSource: Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 34
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 7 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
Based on a review of the proposed site plan, the majority of the future customers will likely
continue to enter using the right-in/right-out west access; however, with the addition of the
proposed drive-thru, most of the exiting customers will likely use the right-in/right-out east
access.
Traffic Forecasts
It is expected that the proposed drive-thru will open in year 2010. Therefore, traffic forecasts
were developed for year 2011. A one-percent annual growth rate was applied to the existing
p.m. peak hour volumes to develop background traffic forecasts.
Trip generation estimates for the p.m. peak hour were calculated for the proposed addition of the
drive-thru based on field observations and drive-thru counts of two existing Dairy Queen
restaurants (in Hopkins and Crystal, Minnesota). These two locations were selected due to their
relatively close proximity to the St. Louis Park Dairy Queen and similar size. The field
observations and drive-thru counts were then compared to annual drive-thru data from the
Hopkins store provided by Dairy Queen. Table 2 displays the results of the comparison between
the drive-thru counts taken as part of this study and the information provided by Dairy Queen.
Table 2
Comparison of Drive-Thru Counts with Annual Data Provided by Dairy Queen:
PM Peak Hour
Restaurant Location
Drive-Thru
Counts
Drive-Thru Data from DQ
Average
June
Weekday
Average
Annual
Weekday
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Hopkins Dairy Queen 22 22 18
Crystal Dairy Queen 18 N/A N/A
As shown in Table 2, the two representative local Dairy Queen restaurants generate between 18
and 22 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Based on data provided by Dairy Queen, a typical
drive-thru generates 22 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour on an average June weekday, and 18
vehicles during the p.m. peak hour on an average weekday (January through December). Since
the field observations were consistent with the data provided by Dairy Queen, and in order to
provide a conservative estimate for the amount of additional trips that will be generated by the
proposed drive-thru addition at the St. Louis Park store, the study will utilize the higher number
of drive-thru vehicles during the p.m. peak hour (22). Table 3 shows the trip generation
estimates for the proposed drive-thru addition.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 35
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 8 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
Table 3
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use P.M. Peak
In Out
Drive-Thru Window (Dairy Queen) 22 22
A pass-by reduction can be applied to the through traffic volumes currently using Excelsior
Boulevard that will stop at the proposed site. Since these vehicles are already using the roadway,
they are not considered to be new trips. Based on information from the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, a 45-percent reduction could be used for the proposed fast-food restaurant. However,
the trip generation estimates for the proposed development represent a worst-case scenario, since
a pass-by reduction was not assumed in this study.
The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated traffic was based on current
travel patterns in the area for this site. Figure 4 displays the directional distribution percentages
for the proposed development. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the
proposed development is shown in Figure 5 for the year 2011 p.m. peak hour.
Future Traffic Operations Analysis
To determine how well the existing roadway system will accommodate the proposed
development, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for year 2011 build conditions. The
key intersections were analyzed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software for the signalized
intersections and the Highway Capacity Software for the unsignalized intersections. For the
existing analysis, signal timing obtained from Hennepin County was used for the signalized
intersections. However, the signal timing was assumed to be optimized for year 2011 conditions.
As shown in Table 4, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable
overall LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour for year 2011 build conditions, with existing
geometrics and traffic controls.
Table 4
Year 2011 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service
P.M. Peak
(1) Miracle Mile/Excelsior Boulevard C
(2) Right-In/Right-Out West Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/B
(3) Right-In/Right-Out East Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/A
(4) Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/C
(5) Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard B
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst
approach LOS.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 36
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
ST.DR.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.W.44th
ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
W.37th ST.
W.39th ST.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.
AVE.XENWOODBROOKSIDEBRUNSWICKCOLORADOAVE.AVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.
M EA
D
OWBROOKBLVD.DAKOTAAVE.W. 39th ST.
ST.DAKOTAAVE.W.35th
ST.AVE.COLORA DOLYNNAVE.AVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.EDGEWOODAVE.VER MONT
39th
11.BELT LINEBLVD.BLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW .
V ALLAC
H
E
R
AVE.PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.CA MBRI DGE AVE.WOOLI
B
R
A
R
Y LA
.
40th
LA.
41st
ST.AVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.
DEVANEY
ST.
W. 41st ST.
W.41 st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
O
R
W. 39 th
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.E.CLEAVE.AVE.BLVD.AVE.LA.NORTHAVE.12.VORKAVE.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.XENWOODYOSEMITE34 ST.LAKEBRUNA
V
E
.
PARK
G
L
E
N
R
D
.LINEBLVD.th
W. 34th ST.
3
100NORTHNorth
30%
107161
June 2010
Trip Distribution
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 4H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 4_distribution.cdr70%
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 37
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
W.
ST.DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
37th ST.
W.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.XENWOODBROOKSIDEAVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.LYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.VER MONT
39thBELT LINEBLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
VALLA
C
H
E
R
AV E .PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.MBRI DGE AVE.WOO40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W.st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
OR
W. 39t
h
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.3
100NORTHNorth
70
880
60
0
900
10
0
35
740
50
140
1010
135
25
20
1155
10
20
80
980
70 12020105 7005 752030 85 1535 5 010 40 1515
990
990
1180
1120
25 25 65 LEGEND
XX = P.M. Peak Hour
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Control 20 107161
June 2010
Year 2011 Build Conditions
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 5H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 5_build.cdrCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Quentin AvenueCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)
CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Miracle MileFull AccessRight-In/Right-Out West AccessRight-In/Right-Out East Access1
3
2
4
5
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 38
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 11 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
It is important to note that the results of this analysis take into account the increase of u-turn
movements at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard
intersections. It is assumed that all drive-thru customers will exit the site using the right-in/right-
out east access. As a worst-case scenario, it is also assumed that the customers wanting to travel
to the west will make a u-turn at the full-access or Quentin Avenue intersections along Excelsior
Boulevard. It is estimated that the eastbound u-turn movement at each of these intersections will
increase by approximately 10 vehicles during the evening peak hour, with the proposed
development. Based on the operations analysis and simulation results, it is expected that the
adjacent roadway system and key intersections can accommodate this movement.
Site Access and Circulation
As part of this study, a review of the Dairy Queen development access and circulation was
completed. Field observations at the existing Dairy Queen restaurant (without the proposed
drive-thru) were conducted during the p.m. peak hour. The main access to the development is
along Excelsior Boulevard at Miracle Mile. As stated earlier, the most westerly right-in/right-out
driveway is the main access from Excelsior Boulevard to the Dairy Queen restaurant. The
internal roadway connecting to the right-in/right-out west access borders the east end of the main
Miracle Mile shopping center parking lot and leads to the proposed drive-thru roadway and
additional restaurant’s parking. Although the site is relatively busy with the current land uses, no
major site circulation/parking maneuver problems were observed during the p.m. peak hour.
Nevertheless, as a result of the proposed drive-thru addition, an increase in activity along this
internal roadway is expected. Based on the proposed site plan, the drive-thru circulation
roadway will accommodate approximately seven vehicles to stack before spilling out into the
internal roadway between the Dairy Queen restaurant and the Miracle Mile shopping center.
Field observations at two local representative Dairy Queen restaurants with drive-thru windows
revealed that during the p.m. peak hour, the maximum queue at the drive-thru windows was two
to three vehicles, or well below the seven vehicle stacking provided along the proposed drive-
thru circulation roadway. If the queue does ever extend onto the internal roadway, motorists will
be expected to provide a gap for a vehicle from the main parking lot to travel northbound to exit
using the right-in/right-out west access. If the location of the drive-thru roadway was located
further south of the main parking lot (where most of the circulation and parking operations
occur), the likelihood of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the internal roadway and interfering
with the vehicles to/from the main parking lot could be minimized.
A review of pedestrian traffic from the Miracle Mile main parking lot to the Dairy Queen
restaurant was also completed. While Dairy Queen customers currently have the option to park
south of, or west of the proposed restaurant, field observations indicate that the majority of the
current customers park in the main parking lot west of the restaurant during the p.m. peak hour.
Since the proposed site plan shows that approximately twelve existing parking spots south of the
building will be removed in order to construct the proposed drive-thru, this current trend of
customers using the parking area west of the restaurant will likely continue. As shown in the
proposed site plan, customers parking in the Miracle Mile main parking lot to the west have a
marked crosswalk guiding them to the restaurant entrance. With lower speeds on site,
pedestrians should not experience any difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 39
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 12 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
Next, the need for the right-in/right-out east access was reviewed. Existing p.m. peak hour
volumes indicate only one motorist used this driveway to enter the site, and two motorists used
this driveway to exit the site. Due to the layout of the proposed drive-thru operations, customers
are not expected to use the east access driveway to enter the site. However, this access is
expected to be the main driveway for customers leaving the proposed drive-thru. It should be
noted that the east internal roadway is also used for deliveries to the restaurants east of the
existing Dairy Queen. Delivery trucks travel northbound on the east internal roadway to
complete deliveries and leave the site using the existing right-in/right-out east access. Therefore,
consistent with the proposed site plan, it is recommended that the east driveway be modified to
right-out only access. It is further recommended that a “No Right-Turn” sign be installed on
Excelsior Boulevard at the East Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to reinforce that the
East Access is a right-turn out only access.
The Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection was also reviewed. Currently, the significant
movements at this driveway intersection are the eastbound left-turn/u-turn and southbound right-
turn. As stated in the operations analysis section, it was assumed that all drive-thru customers
would exit using the right-in/right-out east access. These customers traveling to the west would
need to make a u-turn on Excelsior Boulevard at either the full access just east of the right-
in/right-out east access, or at Quentin Avenue. It will be particularly difficult for motorists to
make this u-turn maneuver at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection during peak
periods due to the heavy traffic volumes and few gaps on Excelsior Boulevard. As a result, a
higher volume of u-turning vehicles will likely use the Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard
intersection during peak periods. While this is not a fatal flaw in the proposed drive-thru
addition, it will be something that needs to be monitored in order to determine whether u-turns
need to be restricted in the future at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection east of the
right-in/right-out east access.
Alternatively, the City could consider the feasibility of modifying this access based on its current
use. At a minimum, the modification of this access to right-in/right-out/left-in operations should
be discussed. If the eastbound u-turn movement is restricted with the redesign of this
intersection to a 3/4-access, motorists are expected to make this move at the signalized
intersection of Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard. Future operations analysis results indicate
that the Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard intersection could handle this increase in traffic
due to the modification of the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. The elimination of
left-turn movements from developments on both sides of Excelsior Boulevard will improve the
safety of this corridor segment where closely spaced intersections/driveways currently exist.
However, additional analysis is necessary to determine its feasibility. This intersection
improvement is related to the total amount of access and development along Excelsior
Boulevard, not the proposed drive-thru addition at Dairy Queen.
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 40
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 13 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A drive-thru is proposed to be added to the existing Dairy Queen located in the southeast
quadrant of Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) in the City of St. Louis Park. The
purpose of this study is to examine the impacts this development would have on the adjacent
roadway system. A site access and circulation analysis was also conducted.
Based on this analysis, the following comments and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
Under existing conditions, all key intersections operate at an acceptable LOS C or better
during the p.m. peak hour.
Under year 2011 build conditions, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at
an acceptable LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour, with existing geometrics and traffic
controls. The analysis results for future conditions represent a worst-case scenario since a
pass-by reduction related to a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru operations was not
included. These results do take into account the expected increase of u-turn movements at
the Full-Access and Quentin Avenue intersections along Excelsior Boulevard.
Field observations for existing Dairy Queen restaurant (without a drive-thru window) were
conducted during the p.m. peak hour. Although the site is relatively busy with the current
land uses, no major site circulation/parking maneuver problems were observed during the
p.m. peak hour. Due to the proposed drive-thru operations, an increase in activity along the
west internal roadway is expected. While field observations of local Dairy Queen restaurants
with drive-thru windows revealed that the maximum number of vehicles stacked in line at the
drive-thru does not typically exceed two to three vehicles during the p.m. peak hour, and is
well below the seven vehicle stacking provided along the proposed drive-thru circulation
roadway; moving the location of the drive-thru roadway further south of the main parking lot
will reduce the likelihood of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the internal roadway and
interfering with the vehicles to/from the main Miracle Mile parking lot. With lower speeds
on site, pedestrians should not experience any difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant.
For the east internal roadway, it is recommended that the Right-In/Right-Out East Access/
Excelsior Boulevard intersection be modified to a right-out only movement (consistent with
the proposed site plan). A “No Right-Turn” sign should be installed on Excelsior Boulevard
at the East Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to reinforce that the East Access is a
right-turn out only access.
It is recommended that the County and City continue to monitor the Full Access/Excelsior
Boulevard intersection once the proposed drive-thru is added to determine whether u-turns
need to be restricted. Alternatively, the City could consider the feasibility of modifying the
Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to right-in/right-out/left-in operations. This
potential intersection improvement is related to the total amount of access and development
along Excelsior Boulevard, not the proposed drive-thru addition at Dairy Queen.
H:\Projects\7161\TS\Report\FINAL DQ TS 6-7-10.docx
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 41
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 42
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 43
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 44
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 45
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 46
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 47
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 48
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 49
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 50
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 51
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 52
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 53
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 54
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 55
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 56
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 26
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 58
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 59
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 60
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 61
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 62
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 63
City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 64
Miracle Mile Area Parking Availability Site Building square footage and Parking requirement Zoning Ordinance – Initial Off-Street Parking requirement 10% Transit ReductionTotal parking requirement Total parking available Difference Pannekoeken / Baja 4995 Excelsior Boulevard 5,980 square feet 1 space per 60 square feet 100 spaces 10 spaces 90 spaces 45 spaces Parking lot – Pannekoeken / Baja 4961 Excelsior Boulevard NA NA NA NA 58 spaces subtotal 1 100 spaces 10 spaces 90 spaces 103 spaces +13 spaces Dairy Queen 5001 Excelsior Boulevard 4,400 square feet 1 space per 60 square feet 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces subtotal 2 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces -38 spaces Miracle Mile 5201 Excelsior Boulevard 146,400 square feet Office – 1 space per 250 Retail – 1 space per 250 Restaurant – 1 per 60 89 spaces 489 spaces 33 spaces 9 spaces 49 spaces 3 spaces 80 spaces 440 spaces 30 spaces 391 spaces subtotal 3 611 spaces 61 spaces 550 spaces 391 spaces -159 spaces Pannekoeken / Baja subtotal 1 100 spaces 10 spaces 90 spaces 103 spaces Dairy Queen subtotal 2 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces Miracle Mile subtotal 3 611 spaces 61 spaces 550 spaces 391 spaces TOTAL 784 spaces 78 spaces 706 spaces 522 spaces -184 spaces City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 65