HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/09/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of July 19, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (Bader
Development).
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Second Amendment
to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC.
7b. 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification.
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a
special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and
approval of the 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2011.
7c. Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution providing for the issuance of Tax
Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds (Series 2010) related to Hoigaard Village.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Payroll Week Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes August 9, 2010
Meeting of September 7, 2010
City Council Agenda
3b. City Council Minutes August 16, 2010
3c. Study Session Minutes August 23, 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 and First Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of
an ordinance amendment to Chapter 15 of City Code concerning charitable gambling
regulations in St. Louis Park and to set second reading for September 20, 2010.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance.
Recommended Actions:
• Motion to approve a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
The Shops at West End allowing a multiple family dwelling in the Office district, subject
to conditions.
• Motion to approve a variance for shadowing based on the findings in the staff report.
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.
8c. Adoption of the 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Budgets, 2011
Preliminary City and HRA Property Tax Levies.
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving 2011 Preliminary
General Fund and Park and Recreation Budgets, 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and
Setting Public Hearing Date for the 2011 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy.
Meeting of September 7, 2010
City Council Agenda
8d. Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale
Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract
No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700.
9. Communication
Meeting of September 7, 2010
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
7430 North Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0052
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
5736 - 25½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0048
4c. Designate Global Specialty Contractors the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $181,965.77 for the West 36th Street
Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600
4d. Approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard (Rojo) for Temporary
Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining and Approve premises amendment to the on-
sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Rojo West End, LLC, dba Rojo Mexican
Grill, 1602 West End Boulevard
4e. Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the LRT
and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for the 2010-2011
Winter Season
4f. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish,
4017 Utica Avenue South, for their Fall Celebration Event to be held September 11, 2010
4g. Adopt Resolution approving designation of nonconservation land shown on Classification
List “1528 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the
property at 2944 Brunswick Ave South and approving acquisition of property for
$87,915.00
4h. Approve a one-year extension for the filing of the plat of METROPOINT
4i. Approve a one-year extension for the Sam’s Club Fuel Station CUP for excavation
4j. Adopt Resolution approving the EDA’s issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds
(Series 2010) related to Hoigaard Village
4k. Adopt Resolution electing to continue participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and agree to the affordable and
life-cycle housing goals as determined by the Metropolitan Council for calendar years 2011 -
2020
4l. Reappoint Isabella Stewart as a Youth Commissioner to the Human Rights Commission for
the term ending August 31, 2011
4m. Accept for Filing Vendor Claims for the period August 14, 2010 through September 3, 2010
4n. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2010
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
meeting.
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 19, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross,
Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of June 7, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special Economic Development Authority Minutes of June 28, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2010
7. New Business
7a. Public Hearing regarding the establishment of a Construction Assistance
Program Policy. EDA Resolution No. 10-12
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and clarified that the proper description of this item is a
public hearing regarding the adoption of a spending plan for certain tax increment financing
districts in the City and an amendment to the St. Louis Park business subsidy policy. He
stated that the concept proposes to take advantage of a new law that allows cash balances in
existing TIF districts to be used to spur new construction or rehabilitation of private
buildings for a limited period of time. He explained that the program would make it
possible for the City to provide deferred loans of up to 1/3 of eligible costs in the range of
$20,000 to $500,000 at the discretion of the EDA.
President Finkelstein opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. President
Finkelstein closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sanger asked what the penalty would be for a recipient if they fail to
continuously operate for five years, and/or if a recipient fails to pay living wages to at least
the same number of employees as they had when the program was started, and/or whether
the City receives any type of lien on their property to ensure repayment in case of default.
She also asked if the City will be conducting an audit on recipients to ensure they pay living
wages to their employees.
Mr. Locke explained that this would be a deferred loan, resulting in some type of loan
documents and the filing of those documents. He added that if they do not conform with
the terms of the loan, the recipient would be required to repay the loan with interest. He
indicated the City’s primary focus is to ensure that loans are provided to companies that can
demonstrate that they can do what they are proposing to do. He advised that there are
currently two businesses that have expressed an interest in this money.
President Finkelstein pointed out that the EDA’s policy can be amended at any time and the
EDA will vote on each of the proposed uses of the money. He stated that he supports the
program but would like to limit the amount provided to any one party so that the funds are
not spent by only one or two businesses. He also requested that at least $200,000 of the
fund be set aside for smaller businesses to ensure that they have an opportunity to be
involved in the program. He agreed that the City needs to make sure it has a way of auditing
the fund recipients and encouraged the use of a seven year look-back rule.
Commissioner Sanger stated that she would like to have a firm policy in place prior to
making these funds available and suggested that this matter be deferred until staff has an
opportunity to flush out the details regarding the application and administration of the
program.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2010
Commissioner Omodt agreed, but stated he would rather vote on the policy now in order to
keep the program moving, particularly in light of the tight timeframe.
Mr. Locke suggested that the EDA take action on this item this evening and direct staff to
amend the policy as suggested in order to keep the program moving forward.
It was the consensus of the EDA that amendments to the policy would be brought back by
staff at a future meeting to reflect changes requested by the EDA.
It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-12 a Spending Plan for Certain Tax Increment Financing Districts in
the City, a construction assistance program policy, and an Amendment to the St. Louis Park
Business Subsidy.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period July 17 through September 3, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:52:56R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -7/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,960.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP
6,960.00
17,739.81DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMEC GEOMATRIX INC
17,739.81
2,605.02DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANDERSON, NORMAN
2,605.02
94,695.84AQUILA COMMONS G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTAQUILA SENIOR LLC
94,695.84
61,233.12WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
61,233.12
450.002009A TAX GOTI REF G&A FISCAL AGENT FEESBOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
450.002008B GO TAX INCREM BONDS G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES
900.00
174,147.08CSM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTCSM CORPORATION
174,147.08
32,678.52EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTEDGEWOOD INVESTORS LLC
32,678.52
675.98WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
675.96TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,317.21HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
675.96VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
675.96PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,079.71CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,567.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
984.71MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,269.71PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
984.71EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14,455.96ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
984.71WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
984.71AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
984.71HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
27,317.50
144,902.95PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTEXCELSIOR & GRAND LLC
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claimis Page 2
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:52:56R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -7/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144,902.95
577,449.30PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTGOTTMAR LLC
577,449.30
15.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A POSTAGEGROVE, JULIE
15.00
75,158.02HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTHIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC
75,158.02
558.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
16,981.38DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
17,539.38
288.00HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
3,720.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
4,008.00
6,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
6,000.00
6,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMARTIN & PITZ ASSOC, INC
6,000.00
15,362.75DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGMCCOMB GROUP LTD
15,362.75
322.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
322.50
109,695.00MILL CITY G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTMSP REAL ESTATE INC.
109,695.00
457.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
457.00
12.91DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
12.91
12.49HOIGAARD TIF AMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
12.49
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claimis Page 3
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:52:56R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -7/17/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,290.47DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
8,366.29DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
13,656.76
214.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
214.50
75,799.00VICTORIA PONDS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTSVK DEVELOPMENT INC.
75,799.00
Report Totals 1,464,882.45
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claimis Page 4
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (Bader
Development).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with
Ellipse on Excelsior LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the interim use of the former American Inn property to accommodate
overflow customer parking related to the opening of the commercial components at the Ellipse on
Excelsior as specified in the proposed Second Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2009 the EDA and Bader Development (“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 the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
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 Redeveloper 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 sought approval for a larger 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
requested use of the EDA’s Property for the purpose of overflow customer parking should it prove
necessary.
On August 16, 2010 the City Council approved a Major Amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow a larger restaurant and medical/dental clinic within the Ellipse, subject
to certain conditions. One of those conditions was that the Redeveloper enter into an agreement
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
with the EDA for use of the EDA Property for potential overflow customer parking from the Ellipse
for at least a one year term.
Proposed Second Amendment
To formalize the proposed agreement, the parties have agreed to enter into a Second Amendment to
the Contract for Private Redevelopment. The proposed terms and conditions of the Amendment are
listed below.
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”).
2. Such Overflow Use is authorized for the initial term of September 1, 2010 to September 1,
2011.
3. In return for the use of the Property during this initial term Redeveloper agrees to pay the
EDA a fee of $3,000 payable on or before March 1, 2011.
4. During the initial term Redeveloper shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Property
including the removal of snow, ice and debris as necessary.
5. The EDA shall be responsible for turf maintenance and any needed repairs to the Property.
6. The Redeveloper would be responsible for the installation of signage indicating that parking
is restricted to customer parking and is available solely during times the commercial
components are open to the public and that no overnight parking is allowed.
7. The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that at least one parking stall be
designated for handicapped persons on the Property.
8. The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that parking is prohibited over any
areas constituting the footprint of the former American Inn building on the Property.
9. At the conclusion of the Initial Term of the Overflow Use, the Redeveloper may request
renewal of the license for one or more additional one-month terms, subject to the
Maintenance Conditions, up to a maximum of 24 additional months. Approval by the
EDA of such renewals may not be unreasonably withheld. The consideration for each one-
month renewal shall be $500, payable no later than seven (7) days prior to the first day of
the month for which the renewal is requested. Failure by the Redeveloper to pay the
required consideration for the next succeeding month shall constitute a termination of the
license.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
10. In lieu of requesting renewal of the license for additional one-month terms, the Redeveloper
may request one or more single-day licenses to use the EDA Property for Overflow Use,
subject to the Maintenance Conditions, provided that the Maintenance Conditions shall
apply only during the date of such Overflow Use. The consideration for such a single-day
license shall be $100, payable no later than seven (7) days prior to the date requested for
such Overflow Use.
11. During the initial term or any subsequent one-month term, the EDA may terminate the
Overflow Use of the Property with 30 days written notice or upon non-payment by the
Redeveloper of the required consideration.
12. During the initial term or any subsequent term, the Redeveloper shall continue to
indemnify and hold harmless the EDA for any claims arising from the Redeveloper’s use of
the EDA’s Property.
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 August 31, 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 on a
month-to-month basis for $500 per month or on a single day basis for $100 a day for up to 24
months.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ELLIPSE ON
EXCELSIOR LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1791 (the “TIF
Act”), made up of certain property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”) to be developed
by Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (the “Redeveloper”).
1.02. The Authority and the Redeveloper have executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of February 2, 2009, as amended by that First Amendment thereto dated as of
April 19, 2010 (the “Agreement”), whereunder the Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as
defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection
with the development of a mixed-use retail and residential housing facility on the Redevelopment
Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.03. The Redeveloper has requested and the Authority has agreed to the use by
Redeveloper of an adjacent parcel owned by the Authority for overflow parking purposes related to
the commercial components of the Minimum Improvements. The parties have negotiated and
propose to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) to modify
certain provisions of the Agreement to allow such use.
Section 2. Second Amendment Approved.
2.01. The Second Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the document by such officials shall
be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to
execute, on behalf of the Authority, the Second Amendment.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
September 7, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) is
dated as of September 7, 2010, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and
ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
RECITALS
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City.
B. The Authority has established the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax Increment Financing
District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as
amended, made up of the area to be developed by the Redeveloper (the “Redevelopment Property”) and
certain other property within the Project.
C. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of February 2, 2009, as amended by that First Amendment thereto dated as of
April 19, 2010 (as amended, the “Contract”), whereunder the Authority pledged Available Tax
Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in
connection with the development of a mixed-use retail and residential facility on the Redevelopment
Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
D. On November 12, 2009, the Authority purchased the property at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard (the “Authority Property”) which adjoins the Redevelopment Property. The Redeveloper has
previously requested and the Authority agreed to the temporary provision of overflow parking on the
Authority Property under certain conditions.
E. The parties have now determined a further need for overflow parking on the Authority
Property under certain additional conditions. To memorialize the terms and conditions of such
overflow parking, the parties have agreed to modify certain terms and conditions of the Contract as
set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties
hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment of Section 4.10. Section 4.10 of the Contract is amended and
renumbered as follows (underlined text indicates new provisions):
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Section 4.10. Limited Use of Authority Property. (a) The Authority grants to the
Redeveloper the temporary use of the Authority Property solely for customer parking purposes
related to Redeveloper’s marketing of the Minimum Improvements (the “Permitted Use”). Such
Permitted Use is authorized for the period from May 1 through September 1, 2010, upon
satisfaction of the following conditions:
(i) Prior to July 1, 2010, the Redeveloper shall obtain a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy from the City for at least one model housing unit within the Minimum Improvements;
(ii) The Redeveloper shall provide signage indicating that parking on the Authority
Property is restricted to customer parking and is available solely during time periods that model
units are open to the public, and that no overnight parking is permitted on the Authority Property;
and
(iii) The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that at least one parking stall is
designated for handicapped persons.
(b) The Authority further agrees to grant to the Redeveloper a license for the temporary use
of the Authority Property solely for overflow customer parking purposes related to the grand
opening events of the commercial components (Commercial Components”) of the Minimum
Improvements (the “Overflow Use”). Such Overflow Use is subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Overflow Use is authorized for the period from September 1, 2010 through August
31, 2011 (the “Initial Term”);
(ii) The consideration for such Overflow Use during the Intial Term is $3,000, payable
on or before March 1, 2011 and;
(iii) During the Initial Term of the Overflow Use the following conditions (the
“Maintenance Conditions”) shall apply:
1. the Redeveloper shall cause the Authority Property to be kept clear of snow,
ice, and debris, and the Authority shall be responsible for any necessary repairs to the
Authority Property;
2. the Redeveloper shall provide signage indicating authorized parking
locations, that parking on the Authority Property is restricted to customer parking and is
available solely during time periods that the Commercial Components are open to the
public, and that no overnight parking is permitted on the Authority Property;
3. the Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that at least one
parking stall is designated for handicapped persons; and
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
4. the Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that parking is
prohibited over any areas constituting the footprint of the former American Inn building on
the Authority Property.
(c) At the conclusion of the Initial Term of the Overflow Use, the Redeveloper may
request renewal of the license for one or more additional one-month terms, subject to the
Maintenance Conditions, up to a maximum of 36 additional months. Approval by the Authority of
such renewals may not be unreasonably withheld. The consideration for each one-month renewal
shall be $500, payable no later than seven (7) days prior to the first day of the month.
(d) In lieu of requesting renewal of the license for additional one-month terms, the
Redeveloper may request one or more single-day licenses to use the Authority Property for Overflow
Use, subject to the Maintenance Conditions, provided that the Maintenance Conditions shall apply
only during the date of such Overflow Use. The consideration for such a single-day license shall be
$100, payable no later than seven (7) days prior to the date requested for such Overflow Use.
(e) During the Initial Term or any subsequent term, the Overflow Use may be
terminated by the Authority upon 30 days’ written notice.
(f) The Redeveloper shall at all times indemnify and hold harmless the Authority from
any and all claims for damages, including costs and attorney fees, arising from or by the Permitted
Use by the Redeveloper, Redeveloper’s guests or invitees of the Authority Property; provided,
however, that nothing in this Section shall be construed to waive any rights that the Authority has
against the Redeveloper under this Contract. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as a waiver
by the Authority of any limitations on liability to which the Authority is entitled pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or otherwise.
(g) The Authority shall at all times during the term of this Contract indemnify and hold
harmless the Redeveloper from any and all claims for damages, including costs and attorney fees,
arising from or by the willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Authority and the
governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees thereof upon the Redevelopment
Property.
2. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Subject: Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by Phil Finkelstein and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by Scott Bader, the Administrative Member of Ellipse on Excelsior LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting
TITLE:
2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2011 Preliminary HRA
Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA desire to levy the maximum allowable by law of 0.0185% of taxable market value
collectible in 2011 for purposes of funding infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas of the
City?
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this levy is to assist in funding future improvements to infrastructure in redeveloping
areas. Some possible uses of these dollars are the City’s share of the grade separated crossing at
Highway 7 and Louisiana, and the possible Highway 100 reconstruction. This levy also pays
expenses for lobbying for State and Federal transportation funding. Although there is only $20,000
in capital expenditures budgeted for 2011, there is currently $3,410,542 in estimated capital
expenditures for 2012. The City Council and EDA first adopted the HRA Levy for 2002.
The maximum allowable HRA levy is based on a percentage of the previous year’s taxable market
value in the City. For the 2011 levy, the percentage is 0.0185%. Based on the taxable market value
of the City of $5,561,557,200, staff has calculated the maximum preliminary HRA Levy for 2011 to
be $1,028,888. This is a $14,453 decrease, or approximately 1.39% from 2010 to 2011 in the
potential maximum allowable HRA levy. The decrease is a result of a lower taxable market value in
the City for 2011. As indicated in the resolution, the EDA is allowed to authorize the HRA levy
and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is required before
certification.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly related to
transportation needs, staff is recommending the EDA adopt the resolution authorizing the proposed
HRA levy.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This levy supports St. Louis Park being a connected and engaged community relative to
transportation connections.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification
Attachments: EDA Resolution
2011 HRA Levy Preliminary Budget
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED LEVY OF
A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTION 469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL
OF A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy
and collect a special benefit levy of up to .0185 percent of taxable market value in the City upon all
taxable real property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to .0185
percent of taxable market value in the City for taxes payable in 2011; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to
adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by
September 15; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget for
its operations for the fiscal year 2011 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in 2011
shall be based on this budget, subject to any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to
certification of the final special benefit levy.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority:
1. The proposed budget of $1,028,888 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year
2011, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, subject
to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 275.07.
2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed budget
with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6.
3. The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of taxable market
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification
value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be $5,561,557,200 with respect to taxes
payable in calendar year 2011, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the
special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes in 2011 and to take such other
actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final budget and levy by no later than five
working days after December 20, 2010.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
September 7, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 5
Subject: 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification
HRA Levy
2011 Preliminary Budget
September 7, 2010
2009 2010 2011
Actual Budget Proposed Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy $989,407 $1,043,341 $1,028,888
Market Value Homestead Credit 30,856 0 0
Interest Income 98,582 100,000 100,000
Total Revenue $1,118,845 $1,143,341 $1,128,888
Expenditures:
Infrastructure Projects $0 $1,647,771 $20,000
Legislative Lobbying Services 52,653 48,000 36,000
Travel & Meeting Expenses 0 4,500 0
Total Expenditures $52,653 $1,700,271 $56,000
Beginning Fund Balance $3,970,810 $5,037,002 $4,480,072
Net Change in Fund Balance $1,066,192 ($556,930) $1,072,888
Ending Fund Balance $5,037,002 $4,480,072 $5,552,960
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7c
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:
Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution providing for the issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds
(Series 2010) related to Hoigaard Village.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds (Series 2010) related to
Hoigaard Village?
BACKGROUND:
On March 6, 2006 the EDA entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”)
with Union Land II, LLC (the “Developer”). The Contract required the Developer to construct two
phases of mixed-use development on the Redevelopment Property known as Hoigaard Village. Each
phase consisted of two stages. Stage 1, the “Harmony Vista,” consists of 74 condominium units over
main-level commercial space, and has been completed and occupied (although the 74 units currently
consist of rental units due to changes in the condominium market). Stage 2, the “Adagio,” a
building consisting of 58 condominium units, and Stage 3, the “Medly Row Townhomes,”
consisting of 22 townhome units, have not been constructed. Stage 4, the “Camarata,” consisting of
220 rental apartment units, is complete and fully leased.
Under the Contract, initial taxable notes may be issued to assist the Developer with construction of
each Stage, and upon completion of each Stage, the initial note secured by that Stage may be
refinanced, or “refunded,” as a tax-exempt note. The EDA has issued two initial taxable TIF Notes,
the “Series 2006 Note” and the “Series 2007 Note,” secured by tax increment from Stage 1 and
Stage 4 respectively.
To date, the Developer has come to the EDA with several requests related to refinancing the Series
2006 Note and the Series 2007 Note. First, the Developer requested three extensions of the
maturity date for the Series 2006 Note (in January, April, and most recently in June), in order to
give the Developer time to work with his business partners and financial advisers to find a buyer for
the refinancing. The Developer worked out a tentative business arrangement with a private investor,
and the City and EDA both adopted resolutions authorizing the refinancing at their meetings on
June 7. However, after this authorization, the private investor wanted to modify the terms of the
business arrangement, forcing a delay in accomplishing the refinancing.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Subject: Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
Recently the Developer finalized his business arrangements and has requested that the EDA issue its
Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 (the “Bonds”), as provided for in the
Contract. The Developer needs renewed authorization from the EDA and the City to issue the
Bonds in their new format.
Required Actions
Issuance of the Bonds will require a two-step process. Step 1 requires the Developer to receive both
EDA and City Council authorization to issue the Refunding Bonds. (Note: whenever the EDA
issues bonds it is statutorily required to receive authorization to do so from the City Council.) Thus
on Tuesday evening, the EDA will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing EDA staff and
consultants to proceed with negotiating final business terms for issuance of the Bonds and the City
Council will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the EDA to issue the Bonds.
Upon conclusion of successful negotiation by staff, Step 2 in the above process will require the EDA
to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds. Adoption of the bond sale resolution will be
scheduled within the next few weeks.
EDA consultants will be available at the September 7th meeting to address any questions
commissioners may have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In accordance with the Contract, the EDA agreed to reimburse the Developer for certain Public
Redevelopment Costs through the issuance of taxable Notes, which may be refinanced with one or
more tax exempt Notes. The Developer is required to meet certain parameters under the Contract for
the EDA to consider such refinancing. The Developer has met the required conditions, so the
EDA’s consent to the refinancing cannot be unreasonably withheld.
The EDA is being asked to authorize the issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds in the
maximum aggregate principal amount of $4,500,000 secured by available tax increment generated from
the Stage 1 and 4 properties within the Hoigaard Village redevelopment. The issuance of the
obligations will not require any cash payments from EDA or City. All costs associated with the Note
issuance (Kennedy & Graven, Ehlers & Dougherty) are paid from gross proceeds of the tax increment.
By refinancing the Series 2006 and Series 2007 Notes, the interest rates will decrease from 7.25% to
current tax-exempt rates, which allows the EDA to pay down the principal and interest more quickly
than if they remained taxable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Hoigaard Village project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Subject: Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2010
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE)
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and the Authority have heretofore approved the
establishment of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the
purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. In order to provide for the
redevelopment of the Project and the TIF District, the Authority entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006, between the Authority and Union Land II, LLC (the
“Redeveloper”), as amended (the “Contract”).
1.02. Pursuant to Section 469.178 of the Tax Increment Act, the Authority is authorized to
issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing public redevelopment costs of the
Project and to pledge tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district established
within the Project to the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations. The Authority
previously issued and sold its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series
2006A in the aggregate principal amount of $1,663,000 (the “Series 2006A Note”) and its Taxable Tax
Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2007A in the aggregate principal amount of
$2,540,000 (the “Series 2007A Note”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs
of the Project. The Series 2006A Note and the Series 2007A Note are payable solely from Available
Tax Increment as defined in such notes and in the Contract.
1.03. Section 7.4 of the Contract provides that if requested by the Redeveloper, the Authority
will refinance the outstanding principal amount of any Initial Note (as defined in the Contract) by
issuing one or more tax-exempt tax increment revenue notes or bonds, upon satisfaction of certain
conditions described in the Contract.
1.04. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivision 3 and Section 475.79,
the Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon
before the due date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when
determined by the Authority, in the case of obligations payable solely from a special fund, to be
necessary and desirable for the more advantageous sale of additional obligations paid from the same
fund.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 4
Subject: Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
1.05. The Authority hereby finds and determines that (a) it is in the best interests of the
Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series
2010 (the “Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,500,000 for the purpose of
refinancing the outstanding principal amount of the Series 2006A Note and the Series 2007A Note,
paying costs of issuance, and funding a debt service reserve fund; and (b) that the conditions described
in the Contract for issuance of the Bonds have been met. The Bonds will be sold in two series
consisting of the following: Series A Bonds having a senior lien on the Available Tax Increment, to be
issued in the maximum principal amount that can be supported by projected tax increment revenue
from the Redevelopment Property and with such coverage factor as determined by Dougherty &
Company as underwriter for the issuance of the Series A Bonds (the “Underwriter”), in consultation
with Ehlers & Associates as fiscal advisor to the Authority (“Ehlers”), to be necessary to issue the Series
A Bonds; and a Series B Note having a subordinate lien on the Available Tax Increment, in a principal
amount necessary to generate additional proceeds necessary for such purposes. The Authority has
approved the selection of the Underwriter pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Contract.
1.06. Under Section 469.178, subdivision 3 of the Tax Increment Act, the Authority may
sell the Bonds in the manner and for the price that the Authority determines to be in the best
interest of the Authority.
Section 2. Authorizations.
2.01. The Authority hereby determines to proceed with the sale of the Series A Bonds by
direct negotiation with the Underwriter and the Series B Note by direct negotiation with a private
investor (the “Purchaser”).
2.02. The Authority authorizes the preparation and distribution by the Underwriter of a
preliminary official statement to be used in connection with the marketing of the Series A Bonds.
2.03. The Authority further authorizes Authority staff to negotiate the terms of the Bonds
with the Underwriter and the Purchaser, with consultation from Ehlers, and authorizes the
Executive Director of the Authority to execute a bond purchase agreement for the Series A Bonds
with the Underwriter.
2.04. Upon conclusion of successful negotiation by Authority staff, the Board will take
action at its next regularly scheduled meeting thereafter to adopt the necessary bond sale resolution
as prepared by the Authority’s bond counsel.
EDA Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 5
Subject: Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
September 7, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Payroll Week Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read the Proclamation designating September 5-11, 2010 Payroll Week.
Terry Meggitt, a past President of the Northstar Chapter of the American Payroll Association, will
be present to receive the proclamation and say a few words of thanks.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The American Payroll Association has designated the week in which Labor Day falls as National
Payroll Week. The designation of the week in which Labor Day occurs as Payroll Week recognizes
the important contributions of the people of this city who work as payroll professionals and
highlights the partnership between taxpayers and payroll professionals.
The American Payroll Association represents 5,220,393 residents in our state and over 464,946
businesses. These taxpayers and businesses contribute millions of dollars to the state and federal
treasuries through payroll taxes each year. These taxes include both federal and state withholding,
which go toward important civic projects, including roads, schools and parks. Taxpayers and payroll
professionals are also partners in supporting the social security and Medicare systems. In addition,
payroll staffs are now playing an increasingly important role in the enforcement of child support laws
by calculating and deducting child support payments from workers' pay.
The theme of National Payroll Week is "America works because we're working for America." The
collection, reporting and payment of payroll taxes by employers are a positive example of what works
in America. Your support of Payroll Week would be an important step in recognizing and
celebrating the contributions of workers in the United States and the payroll professionals who
report these workers' earnings, collect their taxes and pay their wages. The proclamation of Payroll
Week in St. Louis Park, Minnesota will enhance the public's understanding of their role in helping
support the system and the contributions of payroll professionals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Payroll Week Proclamation Page 2
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Payroll Week Proclamation Page 3
PROCLAMATION
Payroll Week
September 5 – 11, 2010
WHEREAS, the American Payroll Association and its 23,000 members have launched a
nationwide public awareness campaign that pays tribute to the more than 156 million people who
work in the United States and the payroll professionals who support the American system by paying
wages, reporting worker earnings and withholding federal employment taxes; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals in St. Louis Park, Minnesota play a key role in
maintaining the economic health of St. Louis Park, carrying out such diverse tasks as paying into the
unemployment insurance system, providing information for child support enforcement, and carrying
out tax withholding, reporting and depositing; and
WHEREAS, payroll departments collectively spend more than $15 billion annually
complying with myriad federal and state wage and tax laws and payroll professionals play an
increasingly important role ensuring the economic security of American families by helping to
identify noncustodial parents and making sure they comply with their child support mandates; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals have become increasingly proactive in educating both the
business community and the public at large about the payroll tax withholding systems; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals meet regularly with federal and state tax officials to discuss
both improving compliance with government procedures and how compliance can be achieved at
less cost to both government and businesses;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park do hereby proclaim September 5-11, 2010 to be “Payroll Week” to give additional
support to the efforts of the people who work in the payroll profession.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of
the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 7th day of
September, 2010.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 9, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Director of Parks & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Fire Chief
(Mr. Stemmer), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Mike Clark (KKE Architects), Matt Johnson, Matthew Streed, Jenni Tuttle, and Brian
Hook.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 23
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for August 23rd.
2. 2011 Budget Discussion
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and advised that the primary policy questions for Council
consideration include the amount the Council wishes to certify as its preliminary property tax levy
and the amount the Council wishes to set for the 2011 franchise fee adjustment. He explained that
based on earlier budget assumptions, which included a $500,000 property tax levy adjustment, staff
determined there would be an approximate $412,000 gap in the 2011 budget; following additional
budget refinements, department directors have now completed work on their budgets and the 2011
budget is a balanced budget. He stated that the combined preliminary General Fund/Park and
Recreation Fund budget reflects a 1.6% increase from 2010 to 2011. He asked the Council to
acknowledge the efforts of the department directors in working to reduce their budgets while still
maintaining services.
Mr. Swanson presented a summary of revenues and expenditures for the General Fund and Park and
Recreation Fund and pointed out that the budget is balanced with no use of fund balance. He noted
that the proposed budget includes planned salary increases based on previous labor negotiations. He
also presented a summary of the budget by department, which includes a 2012 projected analysis,
showing an approximate $102,000 gap for 2012. This included several assumption including
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
proposed General and Park and Recreation fund levy increase of $500,000. He discussed the City’s
ten year tax levy history which indicates a ten year average tax levy of 6.08%. He also discussed the
City’s debt service levy requirements for 2010-2020. He then presented six separate levy options for
2011 and stated if Council chose a $522,000 levy adjustment, or .68%, based on the budget
assumptions, it is projected that the City would require a 7.36% levy increase in 2012 due primarily
to the fire station debt. He reviewed the impact of a .68% levy increase, a 2.95% levy increase, and
a 4.88% levy increase on the City’s share of estimated property taxes which shows an overall decrease
in the City’s portion of estimated property taxes; the maximum levy allowed under the statute is
4.88%. He indicated that the City is able to show a decrease in its portion of property taxes because
of the decertification of two Tax Increment Districts which puts those parcels back on the tax rolls
enabling to spread out the City tax portion to more parcels.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding the impact to the budget if Golden
Valley terminates its contract for dispatch services.
Mr. Harmening stated that the 2011 budget assumes the City still has a contract with Golden Valley
for 2011; if that contract is terminated, dispatch staff will be reduced from ten to seven positions.
He added that an additional budget gap of $80,000 will need to be filled and staff proposes to use
$40,000 of the City’s annual E-911 fund revenues and the remaining $40,000 gap will be filled
through other adjustments in the Police Department’s budget.
Councilmember Mavity asked if there will be other G.O. bond requirements through 2020 that are
not currently outlined in the debt service levy requirements and expressed concern that there may be
other projects in the future requiring bond issuance.
Mr. Harmening replied that the budget does not assume any other projects other than the fire
stations project. He stated that as of 2016, there are two bond issues coming off; staff has worked
hard to utilize a “pay as you go” approach.
Mr. Swanson stated that the City’s long range financial management plan and GASB rule #54 rule
provides an opportunity for the City to have more restrictive fund balance designations and to
designate projects for a particular reason, without exceeding the Council’s policies on fund balances.
Councilmember Mavity asked what, if anything, will be visible to residents in terms of changes in
services based on proposed budget cuts.
Mr. Harmening stated that residents will not see any difference in services and no services are being
taken out of the budget.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern about the City’s ability to continue to provide services on
a barebones budget. She stated that as the economy improves, additional staff positions can be
added, but felt that residents will come to expect the City can continue to operate on a thin budget
with no cuts in services.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
Councilmember Santa stated that she felt the City needs to do a better job of informing residents of
the budget cuts and sacrifices being made.
Ms. Gohman stated that staff is currently working on posting information regarding the City’s
budget on the website.
Councilmember Ross asked if there is anything the Council should be considering in terms of the
impact of State budgetary cuts on the school district and the possibility that the school district will
look to the City for additional funds.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she would prefer to utilize the highest possible levy increase that
will allow the City to meets its ongoing budget needs and that has minimal impact to residents.
Mr. Heintz presented an overview of the proposed franchise fee adjustment of $.50 or $.75 and
anticipated revenue estimates. He also presented an analysis of franchise fees compared to other
cities, and pointed out that the franchise fees are used to fund the Pavement Management Program.
He discussed the Pavement Management Fund and the Capital Replacement Fund and current
options for long term sustainability of these funds.
Councilmember Sanger requested a comparison between the $1.75 and $2.00 franchise fee and its
impact on the 2011 budget, without making assumptions for 2012 and beyond. She stated she
preferred to increase the franchise fee as much as possible because the utility companies may not
permit further increases in the future.
Mr. Heintz then presented the Park Improvement Fund and stated that this Fund will experience
some budget deficits in the next ten years.
The Council discussed options for maintaining various fund balances and options for utilizing the
tax levy.
It was the consensus of the City Council to prepare the 2011 budget based on the maximum
allowable levy, subject to further consideration by the Council.
It was the consensus of the City Council to prepare the 2011 budget utilizing a $.75 per month
increase in the franchise fee.
Councilmember Mavity reiterated her concern that because the budget is quite thin, she would
welcome an opportunity to review a 2011 budget that utilizes a higher bottom line.
Councilmember Ross agreed, particularly with respect to public safety.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
3. Fire Station Projects
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and introduced Matt Johnson, Mike Clark, Matthew Streed,
Jenni Tuttle and Brian Hook.
Mr. Clark presented the proposed site design and floor plan for Station No. 1 and explained that
this station will have three drive-through bays accessed via Oxford Street for returning emergency
vehicles; emergency response vehicles will leave the station using the Wooddale Avenue cul-de-sac.
He also presented two concept images of Station No. 1 and noted that they are working with staff to
incorporate more classical fire station elements to the design. He then presented the proposed site
design and floor plan for Station No. 2 and stated that this station will also have 80’ drive-through
bays and the apparatus bays are set further away from Louisiana Avenue. He added they are working
into the plan the ability to adjust the property line to the south to make better use of the shared
access agreement with Walgreen’s. He then presented a concept image of Station No. 2. He
discussed the sustainability initiatives being reviewed, including use of the State’s B3 guidelines as
well as LEED guidelines, use of geothermal systems, use of the Xcel Energy design assist program,
use of natural lighting, infiltration and stormwater management, and indoor air quality measures.
He indicated that at this time, a geothermal system falls outside the current budget. He explained
that the Xcel Energy design assist program is a free service intended to assist with determining the
cost effectiveness of some design solutions and includes rebate programs. He presented the overall
project schedule and indicated that the next phase will include design development.
Brian Hook of Kraus Anderson Construction stated that they will provide updated budget estimates
to City Council at the end of the Design Development Phase and prior to Council’s approval to
send the project out for bids, currently anticipated to occur in February 2011. He indicated that the
base project budget for both stations is currently estimated at $14,686,000. He stated that the
addition of one additional bay at each station adds $414,500 to the project, the addition of
additional City storage at Station No. 1 adds $395,000 to the project, and adding alternate
geothermal systems will add an additional $302,000 to the project budget. He noted that the
amount for the geothermal systems includes $27,000 for exploratory costs at the front end to allow
for an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of a geothermal system. He stated the current project
budget estimate with all the alternates is $15,799,000.
Mr. Walther stated that staff requested and received a proposal from KKE to hire a third party to
review the cost estimates of the project; that third party review will cost $15,000.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he felt the decision about Oxford Street being a two-way street should be
part of the neighborhood process.
Mr. Clark stated that the working group has discussed Oxford Street and the Fire Department likes
the operational benefits of having drive-through bays; the Fire Department is willing to accept
having to drive around the block to access the site on their return trips.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
Councilmember Mavity asked if Oxford Street could be a two-way street to the fire station driveway.
Mr. Walther indicated that may be possible.
Councilmember Ross asked if the City anticipates that there would be a significant energy savings
per year with the use of geothermal.
Mr. Walther replied that the energy savings will vary based on the site and the building, and this
needs to be explored further to determine the payback; staff anticipates it will cost approximately
$30,000 to test and explore using geothermal systems at the fire stations. Jenni Tuttle stated that on
two current projects KKE is working on the payback for geothermal is approximately 20 years.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that because the City is the general contractor on the project and
is utilizing a construction manager, he supported an independent, third party review of the cost
estimates for the project.
It was the consensus of the City Council to consider a project budget larger than originally
anticipated.
It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed to the next design phase of the project.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to investigate the suitability, costs, and
payback of using geothermal renewable energy systems at the fire stations.
It was the consensus of the City Council to include the “alternate” apparatus bays.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to work with the neighborhood and pursue
creative options for traffic on Oxford Street, including two-way traffic.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to provide further information to the Council
regarding storage needs.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to hire an independent, third party for the
purpose of reviewing the cost estimates for the project.
Mr. Walther stated that neighborhood meetings are scheduled for September 16th. He indicated
that design development will commence followed by formal Planning Commission and Park Board
reviews, as well as the analysis on the geothermal systems. He advised that KKE recently announced
that it is merging with DLR Group and introduced Matt Johnson from DLR.
Mr. Johnson stated that DLR is excited about the opportunities presented by the merger with KKE.
He indicated that DLR is a 50 year practice with 500 people in 22 locations. He noted that DLR
has structural and mechanical engineers in-house who will be available for this project. He added
that the current fire station project team will not change following the merger.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multi-Family Residential in the Office Zoning
District
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and reviewed the provided ordinance changes based on
the Council’s discussion on August 2nd. She also presented a summary of allowed uses and the
approval process required. She stated that in this case, the ordinance is proposing to amend the
conditions that go along with allowing multi-family residential with a PUD in the Office District.
Councilmember Sanger stated that her concern stems from the fact that the ordinance will be
changed to allow something that has more density and not enough green space requirements. She
indicated she would like to figure out a way to add in additional green space requirements and to
have a way for the Council to retain those requirements in the ordinance for other sites.
Mr. Locke reminded the Council that it retains complete discretion and control over zoning and any
future rezoning in the City based on the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the suggested additional
provisions in the staff report help distinguish appropriate locations for the multiple-family residential
in the office zoning district. These will give the city more discretion in approving multiple-family in
the office zones.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that with light rail, there will be a lot of pressure to put in high
density in different areas throughout the City and there may be Office Districts in the City that are
torn down and replaced with proposals for high density buildings. Ms. McMonigal and Mr. Locke
stated that those areas are not zoned “office” and staff is working on a “Business Park” zoning district
for the station areas.
Councilmember Mavity noted that the proposed ordinance amendment removes the restriction on
first and second floor housing units and removes the maximum density percentage restriction. She
also pointed out that the ordinance provisions for multiple-family dwellings states that access to off-
site parks and open space, plazas and pedestrianways shall be provided.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the cap is removed on the maximum number of units allowed,
thus allowing a much denser project than has been seen in the past, without adequate compensation
for green space. She stated that this might work at the West End development, but it might not
work for the general population at large and, therefore, she is reluctant to remove the maximum
density cap.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council will likely have to review the overall zoning categories as
the City gets pressure from the rail stations and that review can be done in a more methodical way in
the future.
Mr. Locke reiterated that the ability to rezone property rests entirely with the City Council. He
stated that when staff reviewed the West End project, it was felt that the simplest and most
controlled way to allow the development was to modify the Office Zoning District because the
opportunities for development in the overall Office Zoning Districts are limited. He indicated that
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 9, 2010
staff drafted some additional conditions that would limit where multiple-family residential could be
located in the Office Zoning District, which must be part of a larger setting where a developer can
truly meet the already existing conditions of access to parks, etc.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he does not want to see the West End project delayed. He
agreed that Council should have a further discussion regarding future planning and zoning as it
relates to the light rail station areas.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to revise the Zoning Ordinance as discussed
and to bring the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council for second reading.
5. Communications (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the allocation of affordable housing
need that shows 501 new affordable units needed in the City.
Mr. Locke stated that a formula is utilized that takes into account a number of factors, including the
proximity of the City to jobs, the level of transit available, and how much affordable housing is
currently available in the City. He added that this item will be discussed further with the Council at
a future meeting.
Mayor Jacobs requested that the City Council provide feedback on the meeting. The City Council
agreed that it was helpful to have staff review the policy questions prior to staff presentations. The
City Council expressed a desire to spend more time on the budget and to have staff provide more
detailed explanations of the budget, e.g., enterprise funds.
Councilmember Sanger requested more substantive conversation with staff regarding the level of
services the proposed budget will provide. She stated that she would prefer to have staff prepare the
budget in such a way that sets forth the needs of the City and the tax levy required to meet those
needs.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
7. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account: Affordable
and Life Cycle Housing Goals for 2011-2020
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 16, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Ms. McDowell Poehler),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Directors of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Office Assistant (Ms.
Luedke), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. St. Louis Park High School Day One Event
Mayor Jacobs introduced Gina Poretti and Nina Jonson, Co-Advisors of the Day One
student committee at St. Louis Park High School and the students involved in this year’s
Day One committee introduced themselves. Ms. Jonson stated that the students selected a
theme of “Change” this year because there are a lot of changes taking place in the School
District as well as in the make-up of the Day One committee. She added the committee is
always looking for volunteers to help on the first day of school on Wednesday, September 1st,
at 7:45 a.m. and questions may be directed to their email address: dayone.slp@gmail.com
Ms. Poretti expressed the Day One committee’s thanks to the City Council for its support
and invited all councilmembers to participate on September 1st.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to the students for their work on the Day
One committee.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2010
2b. Beehive Relocation Project Award
Mayor Jacobs explained that the City has been selected to receive an award for its
redevelopment of Lilac Park and introduced Donna Tilsner, from the Minnesota Recreation
and Parks Association.
Ms. Tilsner stated that the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association was formed in 1937
to foster growth and development of parks and recreation throughout the State and to
increase awareness of the excellent parks, trails, and recreation programs that are available.
She stated that the structures in Lilac Park were originally built in 1939 as part of the New
Deal Federal Relief Labor Program and the National Park Service is aware of only two
beehives in existence today, one in Robbinsdale and the other in St. Louis Park. She stated
the awards committee commends the City for its efforts in preserving this wonderful piece of
history. She then presented Ms. Walsh with the Award of Excellence and stated that St.
Louis Park is known for providing excellent service and programs to its residents. She also
acknowledged the efforts of City staff, including Ms. Walsh, Mr. Birno, and Mr. Beane.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks for the Award of Excellence and
acknowledged the St. Louis Park Historical Society for its efforts in preserving this great
community asset.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of July 26, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Minutes of August 2, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. 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 No. 2389-10 regarding Zoning text
amendments for Multiple-family Residential in the Office Zoning District, and
approve the summary ordinance for publication.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2010
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 No. 10-080 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 No. 10-081 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 No. 10-082 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.
Mr. Harmening advised that the applicant in item 8b has requested in writing that the
Council postpone action on its request for a Conditional Use Permit until September 7th.
Councilmember Mavity requested that item 8b (Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for
In-Vehicle Service) be removed from the regular agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve the
Agenda as amended to remove item 8b and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to
waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Rojo Mexican Grill Liquor License On-Sale Intoxicating
Ms. Luedke presented the staff report and advised that this is the applicant’s second
restaurant within the Shops at West End. She stated that the premises will be located at
1602 West End Boulevard and will consist of 6,000 square feet with inside seating for 220
and 50 outdoor patio seats.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2010
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, 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.
The motion passed 7-0.
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. Resolution No. 10-083
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and noted that this item was tabled by the City
Council at its July 19th meeting in order to address several concerns raised by the Council.
He stated that since that time, staff has worked with the developer and reached agreement to
utilize the former American Inn site for overflow parking for up to three years. He pointed
out that if the agreement is acceptable to Council, the formal agreement will be brought to
the EDA for approval on September 7th. He stated that staff has also worked with the
residents in the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood to address the parking concerns and institute
parking restrictions and a permit parking program for residents. He indicated that in
addition to the permit parking program, staff has worked with the developer to strengthen
the parking management plan to ensure that the restaurant utilizes the 19 underground
parking spaces during peak parking hours; in addition, the valet parking will be required to
use the underground parking stalls and will not be allowed to park in the neighborhood.
Brian Johnson, 3345 Glenhurst Avenue, expressed his thanks on behalf of the Minikahda
Oaks neighborhood to the City Council, City staff, and the developer for meeting with the
residents so quickly and working to resolve the concerns brought forward at the last Council
meeting. He stated that there are some additional parking concerns and the neighborhood
would like to propose a separate meeting with staff at some point, without hindering the
approval of the PUD major amendment being considered this evening. He also requested
that the City consider further parking restrictions if problems arise in the future.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the developer and the neighborhood for working together
cooperatively to resolve the neighborhood concerns. He stated the City Council wants this
project to be a success without hindering the neighborhood in any way.
Frank Steck, 4121 Randall Avenue, appeared before the City Council and requested
clarification regarding the reduction in cumulative parking. He asked if the requested
reduction of 33 parking stalls or 10.5% is the same figure that was proposed by the applicant
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2010
on July 19th. He stated that his biggest concern is keeping cars out of the neighborhood. He
also suggested that staff consider extending the no parking zone on the west side of France
Avenue all the way up to 34th Street.
Mr. Walther stated that there has been no change in the amount of parking stall reduction.
Mayor Jacobs stated that staff will continue to monitor the parking restrictions.
Councilmember Mavity expressed thanks to the neighborhood, the developer, and City staff
for their professionalism and thoughtfulness in working expeditiously to resolve the
neighborhood’s concerns. She stated that the Council remains committed to making sure
the neighborhood retains its character and she was hopeful that the parking restrictions and
overflow parking arrangement will accomplish what was intended. She asked if the parking
management plan constitutes one of the official exhibits referenced in paragraph 16.A. of the
resolution.
Mr. Walther replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Mavity also asked if paragraph 3 under “Commercial Parking” in the
parking management plan will be amended to clarify the valet parking restrictions agreed to
this afternoon by the developer; in addition, she asked if the “if needed” in paragraph 4
under “Commercial Parking” will be deleted since the developer has agreed to utilize the
former American Inn site for overflow parking.
Mr. Walther stated that this is correct.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she is happy to support the no parking zones and permit
parking in the area but expressed concern that there will continue to be parking problems.
She indicated that she did not feel there is adequate transit for the neighborhood and that
people will not travel to the area by bus, particularly to a restaurant in the evening, which
will result in additional parking problems. She also expressed concern that the developer will
be allowed to use the former American Inn site for overflow parking for up to three years,
because it will hinder the City’s ability to sell the site; as a result, she stated she was not in
support of approving the lease arrangement for a period of up to three years. She indicated
she hoped that the developer would come up with additional parking either through offsite
valet or possibly acquisition of the right to use parking on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard, which would free up space for the retail customers.
Councilmember Omodt stated that he recently met with the developer and does not share
the parking concerns raised by Councilmember Sanger. He stated he is confident that the
developer will work hard to address all parking concerns. He also stated that it is the
Council’s policy to grant reductions in the parking requirements based on the transit parking
reduction rules. He added that the City needs to be amenable to making changes in the
parking restrictions based on bike transit, mass transit, and light rail.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed and stated that City staff and the developer have worked
with the neighborhood to address their concerns, and the parking reduction is appropriate.
He indicated that the former American Inn site will likely not sell quickly due to the current
market, and pointed out that there is a thirty day cancellation clause in the lease agreement.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-083 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.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-084 Authorizing Installation of “No Parking” Restrictions on France
Avenue between Excelsior Boulevard and 34th Street.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-085 Authorizing “Permit Parking Only” on 34th Street West and France
Avenue South.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
This item was removed from the agenda.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents that school resumes on Wednesday, September 1st, and to
remain watchful of kids crossing the streets.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 23, 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), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Director of Parks & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: George Hagemann, Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.
1. Closed Executive Session – Threatened Litigation by Ames Construction Relating to
Hwy. 7 and Wooddale Project
The City Council met in a closed executive session at 6:34 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 7:02 p.m.
The City Council Study Session meeting reconvened at 7:06 p.m.
2. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 13
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for September 13th and stated that the
purchase agreement with respect to 7015 Walker Street may be pulled from the September 13th
agenda depending on the status of the environmental testing currently being conducted; an update
on this property acquisition is contained in the written reports for Council review.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed presentation on September
27th include an overview of the work done by the Watershed District as it relates to water quality in
general.
3. Friends of the Arts Annual Update
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Mr. Hagemann discussed the work of Friends of the Arts (FOTA) over the past year and its
approach to building community through the arts, including Arts for Life, Arts & Culture grants,
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 23, 2010
and Our Town 2010: Voices and Verses. He stated that it continues to be important for FOTA to
make sure the programs embrace a breadth of socio-economic factors and to provide opportunities
to showcase various art forms. He advised that Twin Cities Public Television recently aired a
program on building community through the arts and FOTA representatives were interviewed for
that program. He added that the program will air again on Sunday, August 29th and Thursday,
September 9th.
Councilmember Ross requested further information on FOTA funding and in-kind contributions.
She also stated that she would like to see further extensions of dance, e.g., ballet, and asked if there
are other areas that FOTA is considering to expand its programs in general.
Mr. Hagemann explained that FOTA uses a grassroots approach to funding and works with a
number of foundations, as well as state and private funding, to obtain grants. He stated that for the
most part, organizations approach FOTA regarding opportunities and FOTA works to foster their
interest and invites interested parties to attend FOTA meetings. He added that FOTA works hard
to bring fresh, new talent to the City with the limited amount of dollars it has.
Councilmember Mavity congratulated FOTA on its successful programs and stated that the work of
FOTA is what makes St. Louis Park a unique, exceptional community.
Mayor Jacobs stated that there are a number of opportunities available for additional FOTA
programs and encouraged the Committee to continue to broaden its programs. He expressed the
City Council’s thanks to the Friends of the Arts Committee for their dedicated efforts on behalf of
the City.
4. Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and stated that if the City Council desires to move forward
with a survey tool, it will be important to provide an unbiased and objective report; it is
recommended that a consultant be retained to lead this process.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that an unbiased approach is necessary and that residents should be allowed to
state their preference one way or the other. He stated that the survey will be a useful tool for
gauging resident interest in a civic facility or whether there is significant opposition to a civic facility.
Councilmember Ross also agreed that an unbiased approach is necessary and stated it needs to be
made very clear to residents that there is no promise being made to build anything, and that the
Council is interested in obtaining resident input at this time. She stated that she has heard from
residents in her ward that they would like to see some type of facility in the northwest area of the
City. She added she has also heard a suggestion about using the schools that will be closed. She
indicated that it will be important to look at activities beyond football and hockey, and to consider
soccer, lacrosse, rugby, Frisbee golf, swimming and walking. She asked staff to consider broadening
its approach to obtaining opinions by working with the School District, Community Education and
other groups that might not otherwise be heard.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 23, 2010
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was in agreement with the process proposed by staff and
agreed that it needs to be made clear to residents that no promise is being made to build anything at
this time. She suggested that staff also work with the neighborhood associations to obtain input.
She asked if there was any way that the City Council could provide input into the process. She
stated it will be important to differentiate between the need and desire for recreational facility space
versus what residents want, e.g., upgrading existing recreational facilities. She indicated that she felt
there were a number of needs not currently being met and the survey should seek to determine what
the City is not currently doing and whether there are non-athletic needs that residents want to have
met, particularly because of the changing demographics in the City. She added that the Council has
previously interviewed a number of residents for various boards and commissions and a few of those
candidates should be sought out to assist with this process.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he was in agreement with the use of a facilitator and encouraged
staff to make sure that all views are represented in the community. He added that residents will have
differing definitions of a community center and it will be important for the Council to understand
not only what is missing in the City, but to also have an understanding of what facilities currently
exist for residents and how those facilities are being used.
Councilmember Ross stated that the City should also determine what cost barriers exist for residents
in using the current available space, and encouraged the City to make sure that the facilities are
affordable for residents.
Councilmember Santa stated it will be important to understand what is available in nearby
communities and where the City can fill in any gaps, and to also consider what might be available in
the form of a public/private partnership.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she has heard residents express an interest in a decent indoor
swimming facility, preferably with water slides, an indoor playground, and an indoor
walking/jogging track. She indicated that some of these facilities current exist in the community and
the question is whether a potential public/private partnership exists to address some of these
perceived needs, preferably at a reduced fee to residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the role of the Council will be important, without
micromanaging the survey questions or what the focus groups are asking. She requested that the
survey questions and focus group questions be both specific and broad enough without the
perception that they are being led in any way. She also requested information about the budget for
this work.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Decision Resources survey could come out of the EDA fund and
could be included in the final budget approved by the Council later this year. He requested that the
Council consider using some outside community help to assist the Council in analyzing the survey
results, prioritizing the data, and assisting with determining next steps, etc. He added that the Park
and Recreation Advisory Board could be helpful in that regard.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 23, 2010
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to begin the process of further determining
what additional civic and/or recreational facilities residents would like to see in the community.
5. Affordable Housing
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and asked if the July 12th study session discussion/key directions
from Council regarding affordable housing were accurately summarized in the report.
Councilmembers Finkelstein and Ross stated that they felt the key directions were accurately
summarized in staff’s report.
Councilmember Sanger stated it was her understanding that the specific affordable housing
programs/projects mentioned in #7 should reference the supportive housing programs discussed
previously by the Council. She added that she did not believe it was the consensus of the City
Council to expand the amount of affordable housing in the City in terms of sheer volume.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the statement contained in #2 that
the “City will continue to seek opportunities to promote mixed income development where
feasible.”
Ms. Schnitker explained that when the City was looking at the Duke property, the developer wanted
to add an affordability component to the housing, but it turned out that this was not financially
feasible for the City to facilitate affordable housing in the development. She stated that in projects,
such as Excelsior and Grand, where some aspect of affordable housing is being incorporated into the
development, the City Council has stated that this is something where it would support further
exploration, but it has to be feasible, financially and operationally, and this will need to be done on a
case by case basis.
Councilmember Mavity stated that her concern is that the number of available affordable housing
units has decreased by approximately 23% over the last ten years and she is not aware of whether
Council is okay with that. She indicated that if the City is not proactively putting a policy in place
and thinking about what happens with new units, the percentage of available affordable units will
continue to decrease.
Councilmember Ross stated that it is difficult to say whether the percentage decrease is okay when
there are vacant affordable housing units available in the City, and questioned the need to build
more affordable housing when the demand is not present.
Councilmember Omodt stated he did not believe the City has an affordable housing problem. He
indicated that he felt the City should be more strategic about how it deals with affordable housing.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he would like to see the City work on affordable home ownership
programs. He stated that the City’s current affordable multi-family housing is getting old and worn
down, and felt that the City should address the longer range issues of this type of housing, including
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 23, 2010
replacing it. He added that he felt the City should always give consideration to an affordable
housing component at the beginning of any new development project. He also stated that there
appear to be a number of seniors that are unable to sell their homes and/or that are not maintaining
their homes.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the data points to a need for affordable multi-family housing for
larger families. She agreed that there are problem properties in the City and that the City should
focus on acquiring properties that are not properly managed and/or deteriorating. She added that
there continues to be a number of vacant homes and felt the City should re-examine the home
renewal program, as well as to consider ways to acquire some of the foreclosed or vacant homes to
help meet the needs of families.
Discussion ensued regarding the programs available to residents, including assistance with property
maintenance.
It was the consensus of the City Council to continue focusing on the City’s overall housing
maintenance programs that are available to all residents.
It was the consensus of the City Council to work toward more single family affordable
homeownership opportunities, and affordable housing for seniors.
It was the consensus of the City Council to continue to address problem properties, including
acquisition, and to establish policies for facilitating remedial work on problem properties.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she would like the Council to continue its work on
deconcentration of affordable housing.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated that Highway 7 will be closed starting Friday night, August 27th, and will
remain closed for approximately 12 hours.
Mr. Harmening stated that if any councilmember would like a primer on the budget, they should
feel free to contact him or Nancy Gohman.
Councilmember Omodt requested that the GreenStep Cities proposed project be brought to a study
session for further discussion and decision by the Council.
Mr. Harmening stated that this item will be included in the environmental activities discussion on
September 13th.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there are other items that should be brought up for discussion at
the joint Planning Commission meeting on September 27th. He stated that at a recent Planning
Commission meeting, it appeared that some of the Commissioners were concerned that some of
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Meeting Minutes August 23, 2010
their decisions were being overruled by the Council, and he would like to clear up any issues with
the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the Council and Planning Commission also discuss the
recent Supreme Court decision on variances in order to understand the implications of that decision
on future development in the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the Planning Commission also wants to discuss adequate transit
and how that term is used to justify parking reductions.
Councilmember Santa requested that the Council and Planning Commission be provided with an
analysis of the Supreme Court decision on variances.
The City Council conducted its meeting check-in.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her thanks to City staff, particularly Mr. Birno, for the wonderful
concert last week.
The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. July 2010 Monthly Financial Report
8. Property Acquisition Update – 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property)
9. West Suburban Housing Partners – Urban Park – Private Activity Revenue Bonds Refinancing
10. Green Step Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement
11. Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting
____________________________________ _____________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 7430 North Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 7430 North Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0052.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Ronald and Nancy Wolff, owners of the single family residence at 7430 North Street 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. 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 $5,495.00.
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 7430 North Street
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
7430 NORTH STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 20-117-21-21-0052
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 7430 North Street 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 7430 North Street; 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 $5,495.00.
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 September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 5736 - 25½ Street West.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 5736 - 25½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0048.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Yosef Harush and Nathelie Benjamin, owners of the single family residence at 5736 25 ½ Street West,
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. 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 $5,100.00.
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. b) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 5736 - 25½ Street
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
5736 25 ½ STREET WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0048
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 5736 25 ½ Street West 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 5736 25 ½ Street West; 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 $5,100.00.
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 September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 7, 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: West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Global Specialty Contractors the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $181,965.77 for the West 36th Street
Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to undertake this planned improvement?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on August 26, 2010 for the West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement
Project. Safety and aesthetic related enhancements are proposed, including replacement of the older
and aging bridge railings and chain link fence with new railings similar to those recently installed on
the Excelsior Blvd. Bridge. In addition, the existing protective concrete parapet barrier will be
resurfaced and improved, along with minor work to the concrete sidewalks.
As previously reported, the bridge is essentially an unfinished link in the entire 36th Street streetscape
corridor between Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. The bridge improvements will not
only complete a missing link from an aesthetic standpoint, but will also promote a safer and
friendlier environment that will encourage greater pedestrian and bicycle use in the corridor.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on August 5, 2010 and
August 12, 2010. A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Global Specialty Contractors $181,965.77 *
PCiRoads, LLC $229,846.04
Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. $252,081.50
Engineer’s Estimate $177,000.00
* Bid corrected upon extension
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600
Evaluation of Bids:
A review of the bids indicates Global Specialty Contractors submitted the lowest responsible bid.
Global Specialty Contractors is a reputable contractor which has successfully performed similar types
of construction in other communities.
Construction Timeline:
This project has a completion date of December 15, 2010. Traffic over the bridge will be
maintained at all times; however, some periodic temporary sidewalk and lane closures will be
necessary in order to complete the construction. Signage and traffic control will be implemented as
necessary to allow for this. This project has been developed in close coordination with Mn/DOT.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Remaining Livable Communities Grant monies will fund the contract construction. All grant funds
must be expended by the end of this year in accordance with the terms of the City’s agreement with
Met Council. Staff has reviewed the proposed enhancements with Met Council and received
approval.
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $181,965.77
Contingencies (10%) 18,196.58
Engineering & Administrative 26,250.00
Total $226,412.35
Funding Sources
Livable Communities Grant $200,162.35
Development Fund 26,250.00
Total $226,412.35
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project will help address the Strategic Direction of being a connected and engaged
community and improving community aesthetics.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard and Rojo Mexican Grill Patio Premises
Amendment to Liquor License.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard (Rojo) for
Temporary Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining.
Motion to approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for
Rojo West End, LLC, dba Rojo Mexican Grill, 1602 West End Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the Encroachment Agreement?
Does Council wish to approve the premises amendment to the current liquor license at Rojo
Mexican Grill for additional patio seating?
BACKGROUND:
AD West End LLC owns The Shops at West End. Rojo Mexican Grill (Rojo West End, LLC) is a
tenant within the shopping center. The City Council approved a liquor license for Rojo at its August
16 meeting. Subsequently, the owners of Rojo decided they needed more outdoor seating space. To
accommodate this the tenant proposes to use a portion of the pubic easement at the southwest
corner of West End Boulevard and 16th Street West for outdoor dining. AD West End LLC has
applied for an encroachment agreement to accommodate the tenant’s plan.
Encroachment Agreement
The outdoor dining plan (see attached map) shows 23 tables and 92 seats outside. Approximately 4
of the tables and 14 of the seats would be within the 16th Street West public drainage and utility
easement. Any other improvements related to the outdoor dining area (i.e. planters, stanchions with
heavy velvet rope, wind breaks, heaters, artwork or statuary, et cetera) must be temporary in nature.
The City is not responsible for any damages any items resulting from them being within the right-
of-way. The plan provides at least six feet of clearance along 16th Street and along West End
Boulevard for pedestrians to pass by.
Staff finds the request is consistent with the City policy for Temporary Private Use of Public land.
Rojo Mexican Grill is eligible for an encroachment agreement. Outdoor dining is a use anticipated
by the policy and in the West End PUD. The proposed outdoor dining plan does not unduly
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
impede any public use of the property, and A.D. West End LLC is responsible for maintenance of all
sidewalks (public and private) in the West End PUD.
Liquor License Premises Amendment
Rojo Mexican Grill, 1602 West End Boulevard has made request to the City of St. Louis Park for an
amendment to their current on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license premises for an expansion
of the existing outdoor patio area to provide seating for 92 persons.
City Ordinance Section 3-68 (a) states each liquor license shall be issued only for the exact rooms
and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact and
contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license.
City Ordinance Section 3-106 states proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes
the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed shall not be
allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license.
In addition to approval of the premises amendment and the encroachment agreement, code
compliance must also be met with the Inspections Department including all fees paid prior to
occupancy of the additional seating expansion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The costs of executing the encroachment agreement will be covered by the application fee paid by
the applicant.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed outdoor seating plan contributes to a dynamic, vibrant and active street life at The
Shops at West End and can increase the use of this gathering place.
Attachments: Draft Encroachment Agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Scott Brink City Engineer
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
(reserved for recording information)
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _____________, 2009, by and between the CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"); and AD WEST END LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company ("Owner").
1. BACKGROUND. Owner is the fee owner of that parcel of property with a street
address of 1600 West End Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, and State of
Minnesota, which parcel is legally described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto ("Subject Property").
Owner desires to allow its tenant at 1602 West End Boulevard to seasonally place and maintain
temporary improvements for an outdoor dining area, including items such as tables, chairs, and related
appurtenances (the “Temporary Improvements”). Such Temporary Improvements will encroach upon
the City's right-of-way and/or drainage and utility easement for 16th Street West (the “City Property”).
The Owner has requested that it be permitted to place the Temporary Improvements on the City
Property from March 15 to November 30 annually.
2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves the
encroachment onto the City Property for the Temporary Improvements as shown on “Exhibit B” and
further described on “Exhibit C”, with such encroachment to be permitted between March 15 and
November 30 annually.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
3. LIMITATION ON USE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS. The
Temporary Improvements shall be used solely for the purpose of an outdoor dining area operated as
part of the adjoining restaurant on the Subject Property. The use of the Temporary Improvements will
be reasonably modified by Owner from time to time as requested by the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator. The use must comply with all licensing and other general requirements of the City
Code, all applicable conditions of PUD approval and must at all times maintain a clear public walkway
that is at least six feet wide along 16th Street West.
4. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY. In consideration of being allowed to
encroach on the City Property, Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to indemnify
and hold the City harmless from and against any injury, expense, damage, liability or claim incurred by
the City, arising directly or indirectly out of Owner’s use of the City Property or Temporary
Improvements, including reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees and any other costs incurred by
the City with respect to any such injury, expense, damage, liability or claim.
5. TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.
Should the City reasonably determine that the Owner’s use of the City Property is detrimental to public
safety or the free flow of pedestrian traffic, the City may modify or suspend this Agreement at any time
in case of an emergency, or in a non-emergency situation, modify, suspend or terminate by giving the
Owner thirty (30) days advance written notice. Such notice shall direct the Owner as to whether the
Temporary Improvements on the City Property must be permanently removed or the use otherwise
modified. If the City requires removal, the Owner shall cause the removal of the Temporary
Improvements from the City Property within the thirty (30) day period following notice. If the Owner
fails to do so, the City may remove the Temporary Improvements from within the City Property at the
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
Owner’s expense, and dispose of the Temporary Improvements as the City deems appropriate in its sole
discretion.
6. ANNUAL TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Paragraph 5 herein, the City may terminate this Agreement without cause on December 31 of any
calendar year by giving Owner written notice by November 30 of that year.
7. NOTICE. Written notice to the Owner shall be effective by actual receipt by the
Owner or by mailing the notice to the property taxpayer at the address shown by Hennepin County.
8. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded against the title to the Subject
Property and, subject to termination as provided herein, shall run with the land and be binding upon,
and accrue to the benefit of, any subsequent owner.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: _____________________________________
(SEAL) Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
And ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
OWNER
AD WEST END LLC
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________,
2009, by Jeff Jacobs and by Thomas K. Harmening, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the
City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant
to the authority granted by its City Council.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________,
2009, by , the
_____________________________________ of AD WEST END LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company, on behalf of said company.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
EXHIBIT “A”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Subject Property
Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 8
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
EXHIBIT “B”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 9
Subject: Encroachment Agreement and Premises Amendment Rojo Mexican Grill
EXHIBIT “C”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Crave
1602 West End Blvd
Temporary Improvements – Per Exhibit “B”
(Within the City Drainage and Utility Easement – Part of the Overall
Improvements)
Qty. Description
4 Movable Patio Tables
14 Movable Patio Chairs
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Contract
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing of regional park trails).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the
LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for the 2010-2011 Winter
Season.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue this contract relationship with Three Rivers Park District?
BACKGROUND:
The Southwest LRT and the Cedar Lake Extension trails are owned and maintained by Three Rivers
Park District. However, Three Rivers Park District does not clear or remove snow from their trails
during the winter. They will allow cities to plow snow from their trails under the terms of a contract.
The City of St. Louis Park has cleared and removed snow from the regional trails since 2000. This
service is appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year. As a part of the snow
removal policy, staff recommends the City of St. Louis Park continue to clear the regional trails
through our city since Three Rivers Park District does not. Approving this contract would allow us
to do so for the winter of 2010-2011.
Clearing or removing snow from the LRT trail would be done in much the same manner and
priority as previous years. The trails would be cleared as a part of the Public Works snow removal
policy. Clearing the Cedar Lake Extension is a bit more difficult. There are some areas where the
trail is 10 feet wide with only a 12-foot wide easement. If there are times when the City gets several
inches of snow at one time, it may be difficult for maintenance staff to remove the snow since there
is no room to store it and no way to access the trail to remove it. Staff will keep the City Manager
and City Council informed if the snow accumulations are significant and maintenance staff are not
able to remove the snow. The contract with Three Rivers Park District states that the City must
repair any damage to the trail while plowing snow. Staff will take precautions to prevent damage in
the snow removal process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The resources necessary to undertake this activity are included in the operating budget. There are no
additional expenses expected that are different from the previous years when we have plowed these
trails.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This activity is consistent with the Strategic Direction of being a “connected and engaged
community”. This service is appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year.
Attachments: Winter Trails Activity Permit
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
2010 – 2011 WINTER USE PERMIT
Name of City________________________________ City Hall Phone____________________
Contact Person______________________________ Phone____________________________
Contact Person Email Address____________________________________________________
Maintenance Contact Person__________________________ Phone_____________________
Maintenance Contact Person Email Address__________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to _____________________
Authorized 2010-2011 Winter Activities____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to _____________________
Authorized 2010-2011 Winter Activities_____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to _____________________
Authorized 2010-2011 Winter Activities_____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to _____________________
Authorized 2010-2011 Winter Activities_____________________________________________
Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use portions of the
Regional Trail Corridor for winter use activities between November 15, 2010 and March 31, 2011, as
determined by each municipality within guidelines set forth herein on District Regional Trails located within
individual City boundaries.
It is understood and agreed that approval from the Park District Board of Commissioners is contingent upon
the following conditions:
1. The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District, its officials, officers, agents,
volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or
expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or Indirectly from any act or omission of
the City, its respective contractors, anyone directly or Indirectly employed by the City, and/or anyone for
whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the winter use of the Regional Trail Corridor.
Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the City of any statutory or common law defenses,
Immunities, or limits on liability. The City cannot be required to pay on behalf of itself and Three Rivers
Park District, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter
466. If City maintains general liability insurance at the time this permit is issued, City shall provide the
Park District with a Certificate of Insurance, naming Three Rivers Park District as an additional named
insured.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District
2. The City agrees to maintain the trail, including, but not limited to, any plowing, sweeping, sanding,
packing, trash pick-up, and sign replacement, between November 15, 2010 - March 31, 2011. For ice
control on aggregate trails, Cities agree to use buff colored, 3/8" clear limestone chips from Edward
Kramer and Sons, Burnsville, MN. Edward Kramer and Sons is the only aggregate pit that supplies the buff
colored limestone that has been specified for use on these trails. Paved trails can be treated with a salt/sand
mixture or other approved chemical treatments. The City further agrees to immediately address all safety
Issues on or adjacent to trails.
3. The City wl1l provide signage at locations approved by the Park District, notifying the public of authorized
winter activities within its city limits; activities may include, but are not limited to, hiking, biking, cross-
country skiing, snowshoeing, or walking. Winter use signs must be installed by the City at designated
locations prior to November 15, 2010 and removed by the City no later than April 15, 2011. These signs
are totally the responsibility of each municipality.
4. Snowmobiling is not allowed on Park District regional trails. Permitted use for snowmobiles will be limited
to direct crossings only. The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) does not allow
snowmobiling or other motorized use within its corridors. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail,
Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail, Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail, and the Dakota Rail Regional
Trail are located on HCRRA corridor property and permission for a snowmobile crossing of an HCRRA
corridor must be obtained from the HCRRA prior to requesting permission from the Park District for a
snowmobile crossing of the regional trail within the corridor. If a snowmobile crossing is permitted, cities
must take steps to keep snowmobiles from damaging paved trails, bridges and other property.
5. The City agrees to enforce rules and regulations established by the municipality as part of its request for a
Winter Use Permit.
6. The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail activities and/or
maintenance, Including, but not limited to, bituminous/concrete repair, bridge deck repair, grading or
adding aggregate pursuant to guidelines established by the Park District.
7. The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons, regardless of residence.
Each City is required to submit its annual permit requests, including proposed rules and regulations, by
September 17, 2010, after which the Park District may take up to 45 business days to process. Each permit
request must be submitted as a result of formal City Council action, with accompanying verification, agreeing
to the terms and conditions outlined by the Park District's Winter Use Permit.
The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time, if the conditions set forth herein are not
followed.
Signed: ______________________________________ Date: _______________________________
Title: ______________________________________
(Authorized Representative of the City)
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Temporary Liquor License - Most Holy Trinity Parish.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish,
4017 Utica Avenue South, for their Fall Celebration Event to be held on September 11, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the Temporary On-Sales Intoxicating Liquor License so that Most
Holy Trinity Parish can serve intoxicating liquor at their event?
BACKGROUND:
Most Holy Trinity Parish has made an application for a Temporary On-sale Intoxicating liquor
license for their upcoming event. City Ordinance 3-57(8) requires council approval of temporary
liquor licenses. The event is being held in the church basement and is scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 11, 2010.
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.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 2944 Brunswick Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution approving designation of nonconservation land shown on Classification
List “1528 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the property at
2944 Brunswick Ave South and approving acquisition of property for $87,915.00
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the purchase of this tax forfeited single family home to
facilitate the rehabilitation of the home and make it available for owner occupied affordable housing
purposes?
The purchase and rehabilitation of this substandard single family home in partnership with West
Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust/Homes Within Reach (HWR) meets the City’s Strategic
Direction and housing goal to provide more affordable single family home ownership opportunities
in the city.
BACKGROUND:
County Tax Forfeit Process:
On July 1, 2010, Hennepin County notified the City that the property at 2944 Brunswick Ave was
tax forfeited for nonpayment of taxes. The property is a vacant home in substandard condition.
The owner of this property has been notified by Hennepin County of the forfeiture, and has not
remedied nonpayment of taxes.
Whenever property goes tax forfeit in Hennepin County, the County advises the city where the
property is located. Cities have the option of requesting a tax deed for the property for a public
purpose, requesting a nonpublic sale to the city, or authorizing the County to sell the property at
auction. The County also requests the city confirm by resolution the classification of the property as
Non-Conservation (i.e. not a wetland, lake, etc.).
If the city desires to acquire the property, Hennepin County requires a resolution approving
designation of tax forfeit land as non-conservation and requesting its purchase in order for it to be
sold for development. Cities have period of time in which to respond; the deadline for responding
on the 2944 Brunswick Ave property is September 10, 2010.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 2944 Brunswick Avenue South
Approval of the resolution does not commit the City to purchase the property, as there is a
contingency statement that the City’s acquisition is contingent upon the City’s sale of the property
to HWR.
Property Information
This home has been vacant since early 2009, during which time the exterior and lawn have been
maintained. It is a one and one half story, with two plus bedrooms, one bath and a tuck under
garage. It has a relatively new retaining wall, furnace and A/C. The front steps are deteriorated, and
there is water damage in the basement due to a burst water pipe. The estimate market value in 2009
was $205,100
Potential for Redevelopment as Single Family Affordable Home Ownership:
City staff has researched and reviewed this property along with County and HWR staff.
The proposed scope of improvements would include interior rehab, minor modification to the floor
plan and gutting the basement, along with new windows, siding, front steps and miscellaneous work.
The estimated rehab cost is $75,000.
Staff recommends this home as a candidate for purchase and sale to HWR. The total cost of
acquisition at $87,915 and rehab at an estimated $75,000, will be just over $160,000. The
estimated 2009 land value is $64,700, so HWR will be able to sell this home to a qualifying low
income family for approximately $100,000.
The City has successfully partnered with HWR to develop seven affordable owner occupied homes.
HWR is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes and sells them to
low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease the land for 99
years. The land trust model ensures long-term affordability of the homes. In addition to affordable
mortgages, HWR provides extensive and ongoing financial counseling and homeownership training
for their homebuyers.
Purchase Price to the City
The County’s sale price to the City is $87,915; the County’s appraisal of August 26, 2010, states a
value of $85,000; and there is an additional $2,915 in assurance and transfer fees. Only
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 2944 Brunswick Avenue South
municipalities are authorized to purchase tax forfeit properties in this manner, so the City would
purchase the parcel from the County and sell to HWR for the same amount.
Using allocated and budgeted CDBG and Housing Rehab Funds the City would contribute
$45,000 to this project, which includes $10,000 that has been budgeted for purchasing vacant,
bank, or publicly owned properties. HWR will fund the remaining acquisition and all the rehab
costs. See table below.
Sources and Use – Purchase and Rehab of 2944 Brunswick
Source Use Amount
2010 Allocated CDBG Funds Acquisition $10,000
2010 CDBG Funds – vacant, publicly owned Acquisition $10,000
Budgeted City Housing Rehab Funds Acquisition $25,000
HWR Acquisition $42,915
HWR Rehab $75,000
TOTAL $162,915
The City would also provide a line of credit of up to $50,000 to assist HWR with holding costs
until they sell the home, at which time the City would be reimbursed. A beneficial aspect of
purchasing this property is that the County is required to share the proceeds from the land sale, less
their administrative costs, so the City should yield between $17,000 - $34,000 re-payment from the
County in 2011 for this sale.
Next Steps:
Upon passage of this resolution, the City will purchase the property from the County and enter into
a purchase agreement with HWR to purchase the property. Over the next several months HWR
will rehab the home and work with a qualifying family to purchase the home.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This proposal is consistent with budgeted funds: Housing Rehab Fund (HRF) has budgeted $50,000
to assist HWR with acquisition of two properties in 2010; and has established a $100,000 line of
credit for HWR; and an additional $20,000 of 2010 CDBG funds has been allocated for HWR.
The total cost to the City will be $45,000 less what the City receives from the County sale. The
City’s net cost is projected to be between $11,000 -$28,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Acquisition and rehab of a tax forfeited vacant substandard home for an affordable ownership
opportunity is consistent with the City Councils Strategic Direction to provide a well maintained
and diverse housing stock and the related Focus Area to work towards affordable single family
homeownership throughout the City.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 2944 Brunswick Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST “1528 C/NC”
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
2944 BRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of Minnesota
for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List “1528 C/NC”; and
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as nonconservation land;
WHEREAS, as City requests acquisition of said property for redevelopment of an affordable
single family owner occupied home contingent upon sale to West Hennepin Affordable Housing
Land Trust – Homes Within Reach Program;
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has provided a purchase cost of $87,915 which includes
$85,000 for the property, $2,550.00 for assurance fee, $25.00 for State Deed Preparation, $51.00
for recording fees and $289.00 for the State Deed Tax;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as nonconservation
described in said list is approved, and the City is requesting acquisition of said property:
Include Adjacent ½ of Alley Vac Lot 012, Block 020
“Park Manor Hennepin County Minn”
PID 09 117 21 33 0176
2944 Brunswick Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
and, staff is authorized to prepare and execute such documents as are necessary to sell the property to
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes Within Reach for $87,915.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Metropoint Hotel – Plat Time Extension.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a one-year extension for the filing of the plat of METROPOINT.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support an extension of the time limit to the filing time for the plat of
METROPOINT?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a one-year extension to the time limit to file a plat associated with the proposed hotel
development at the Metropoint office complex in Shelard Park. The site, located at 600 Highway
169, currently features the 600 Tower. An approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows for
construction of a new seven-story hotel located immediately west of the existing 600 Tower.
As approved, the hotel is proposed to be constructed by CSM as a Marriott Courtyard. Because of
market conditions, the developers do not plan to move forward with the proposed hotel
development within the six-month time allotment for filing a plat.
The plat was approved by the City Council on March 15, 2010. The requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance state that all plats must be filed within six months of approval, or an
extension must be requested. The proposed one-year extension would move the filing deadline from
September 15, 2010 to September 15, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Sam’s Club Fuel Station – Conditional Use Permit Time Extension.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a one-year extension for the Sam’s Club Fuel Station CUP for excavation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support an extension of the time limit to begin work for the Sam’s Club Fuel
Station CUP?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a one-year extension to the time limit for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted to
allow excavation in excess of 400 cubic yards at the Sam’s Club Fuel Station, located at 3745
Louisiana Avenue South (Case No. 10-17-CUP). The City Council approved the CUP for
excavation on June 7, 2010, requiring work to be started at the site by June 7, 2011. Sam’s Club has
determined that it is not possible to go forward with the work in 2010. It still plans to begin the
work next summer; however, it is uncertain as to whether the company will be able to start work in
time to meet the June 7, 2011 deadline. For that reason, an extension is requested.
The fueling station was constructed in 2007, but modifications are required because of differential
settling between the parking lot and the fueling station. The soils underlying the fueling station are
settling at a varying rate, and frost heave has become a concern. Though the canopy and fuel tanks
are stable, the parking lot and areas surrounding the station have shifted. The soils underlying the
areas around the station will be removed and replaced by clean fill during the project. When
complete, the site and building design at the fueling station will mirror its initial construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
Approval of the EDA’s issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the EDA’s issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds
(Series 2010) related to Hoigaard Village.
This is a companion to the EDA action earlier this evening on the same topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council approve the EDA’s issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds (Series
2010) related to Hoigaard Village?
BACKGROUND:
On March 6, 2006 the EDA entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”)
with Union Land II, LLC (the “Developer”). The Contract required the Developer to construct two
phases of mixed-use development on the Redevelopment Property known as Hoigaard Village. Each
phase consisted of two stages. Stage 1, the “Harmony Vista,” consists of 74 condominium units over
main-level commercial space, and has been completed and occupied (although the 74 units currently
consist of rental units due to changes in the condominium market). Stage 2, the “Adagio,” a
building consisting of 58 condominium units, and Stage 3, the “Medly Row Townhomes,”
consisting of 22 townhome units, have not been constructed. Stage 4, the “Camarata,” consisting of
220 rental apartment units, is complete and fully leased.
Under the Contract, initial taxable notes may be issued to assist the Developer with construction of
each Stage, and upon completion of each Stage, the initial note secured by that Stage may be
refinanced, or “refunded,” as a tax-exempt note. The EDA has issued two initial taxable TIF Notes,
the “Series 2006 Note” and the “Series 2007 Note,” secured by tax increment from Stage 1 and
Stage 4 respectively.
To date, the Developer has come to the EDA with several requests related to refinancing the Series
2006 Note and the Series 2007 Note. First, the Developer requested three extensions of the
maturity date for the Series 2006 Note (in January, April, and most recently in June), in order to
give the Developer time to work with his business partners and financial advisers to find a buyer for
the refinancing. The Developer worked out a tentative business arrangement with a private investor,
and the City and EDA both adopted resolutions authorizing the refinancing at their meetings on
June 7. However, after this authorization, the private investor wanted to modify the terms of the
business arrangement, forcing a delay in accomplishing the refinancing.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Approval of EDA issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
Recently the Developer finalized his business arrangements and has requested that the EDA issue its
Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 (the “Bonds”), as provided for in the
Contract. The Developer needs renewed authorization from the EDA and the City to issue the
Bonds in their new format.
Required Actions
Issuance of the Bonds will require a two-step process. Step 1 requires the Developer to receive both
EDA and City Council authorization to issue the Refunding Bonds. (Note: whenever the EDA
issues bonds it is statutorily required to receive authorization to do so from the City Council.) Thus
on Tuesday evening, the EDA will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing EDA staff and
consultants to proceed with negotiating final business terms for issuance of the Bonds and the City
Council will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the EDA to issue the Bonds.
Upon conclusion of successful negotiation by staff, Step 2 in the above process will require the EDA
to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds. Adoption of the bond sale resolution will be
scheduled within the next few weeks.
EDA consultants will be available at the September 7th meeting to address any questions City
Councilmember’s may have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In accordance with the Contract, the EDA agreed to reimburse the Developer for certain Public
Redevelopment Costs through the issuance of taxable Notes, which may be refinanced with one or
more tax exempt Notes. The Developer is required to meet certain parameters under the Contract for
the EDA to consider such refinancing. The Developer has met the required conditions, so the
EDA’s consent to the refinancing cannot be unreasonably withheld.
The EDA is being asked to authorize the issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds in the
maximum aggregate principal amount of $4,500,000 secured by available tax increment generated from
the Stage 1 and 4 properties within the Hoigaard Village redevelopment. The issuance of the
obligations will not require any cash payments from the EDA or City. All costs associated with the
Note issuance (Kennedy & Graven, Ehlers and Dougherty) are paid from gross proceeds of the tax
increment.
By refinancing the Series 2006 and Series 2007 Notes, the interest rates will decrease from 7.25% to
current tax-exempt rates, which allows the EDA to pay down the principal and interest more quickly
than if they remained taxable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Hoigaard Village project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Subject: Approval of EDA issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
CONSENTING TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ITS TAX-
EXEMPT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES
2010
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”) as follows:
Section 1. Findings
1.01. The City and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“Authority”) have heretofore approved the establishment of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), and
have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements
within the Project. In order to provide for the redevelopment of the Project and the TIF District,
the Authority entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006,
between the Authority and Union Land II, LLC (the “Redeveloper”), as amended (the “Contract”).
1.02. Pursuant to Section 469.178 of the Tax Increment Act, the Authority is authorized
to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing public redevelopment costs of
the Project and to pledge tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district
established within the Project to the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations.
The Authority previously issued and sold its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard
Village Project), Series 2006A in the aggregate principal amount of $1,663,000 (the “Series 2006A
Note”) and its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2007A in
the aggregate principal amount of $2,540,000 (the “Series 2007A Note”) for the purpose of
financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project. The Series 2006A Note and the Series
2007A Note are payable solely from Available Tax Increments as defined in such notes and in the
Contract.
1.03. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivision 3, the Authority is
authorized to issue and sell its bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon before the due
date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when determined
by the Authority, in the case of obligations payable solely from a special fund, to be necessary and
desirable for the more advantageous sale of additional obligations paid from the same fund. The
Authority has determined that it is necessary and desirable to issue and sell its Tax Increment
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2010, in the aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $4,500,000 to refund the outstanding principal of the Series 2006A Note and
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Subject: Approval of EDA issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes -- Hoigaard Village Project
the Series 2007A Note. The Bonds are proposed to be issued pursuant to the terms of a Bond
Resolution dated on or after September 20, 2010. The Bonds shall be payable solely from Available
Tax Increment (as defined in the Bond Resolution) that is expressly pledged to the payment of the
Bonds pursuant to the terms of the Bond Resolution.
1.04. Pursuant to the Enabling Resolution Establishing an Economic Development
Authority for the City of Saint Louis Park, dated November 3, 1988 (the “Enabling Resolution”),
the sale of all bonds or obligations issued by the Authority must be approved by the Council before
issuance.
Section 2. Approval of Bonds.
2.01. The City Council hereby approves and consents to the issuance by the Authority of
the Bonds upon the terms and pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Bond Resolution. The
City Council approves and consents to the application of the proceeds derived from the sale of the
Bonds to the refunding of the Series 2006A Note and the Series 2007A Note, the payment of the
costs of issuance and other related costs with respect to the Bonds, and the funding of a Reserve
Fund for the Bonds.
2.02. As provided in the Bond Resolution, the Bonds are not to be payable from nor
charged upon any funds of the Authority or of the City, other than the revenues pledged to the
payment thereof; the Authority and the City are not subject to any liability thereon except from such
revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to
compel any exercise of the taxing powers of the Authority or the City (other than as contemplated by
the pledge of tax increment revenues under the terms of the Bond Resolution) to pay any of the
Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the Authority
or City other than the property expressly pledged thereto; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge,
lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Authority or the City other than
the revenues expressly pledged thereto; each Bond issued under the Bond Resolution shall recite that
the Bonds are issued without a pledge of the general or moral obligation of the Authority, and that
the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
thereof; and no Bond shall constitute a debt of the Authority or the City within the meaning of any
constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4k
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:
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account: Affordable and Life
Cycle Housing Goals for 2011 – 2020.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution electing to continue participation in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and agree to the affordable and
life-cycle housing goals as determined by the Metropolitan Council for calendar years 2011 - 2020.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Local Housing Incentives Account, and if so, is it willing to adopt affordable and life-cycle housing
goals as developed by the Metropolitan Council?
BACKGROUND:
St. Louis Park previously elected to be a participant in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Local Housing Incentives Account (LCA LHIA). Participation is voluntary and provides the City
with the opportunity to compete for grants and loans to support activities that help the City meet its
affordable and life-cycle housing goals, clean up polluted sites, and support demonstration projects
linking jobs, housing and transit. The City has been the successful recipient of numerous grants
totaling over $8 million since 1996. (Attachment A)
The City’s previously adopted LCA LHIA affordable and life-cycle housing goals were negotiated
with the Met Council for the period 1996 – 2010. At that time, the goals framework was not based
upon analysis of households with a housing need, limited household income or housing condition.
It was based solely upon keeping the production of new affordable units at a level similar or better
than the existing situation in the community between 1996 and 2010. A community’s benchmark
was a percentage range in each of six categories that represented the average for all communities at a
similar stage of development.
The Met Council is taking a new approach in setting the 2011 to 2020 goals. The Met Council is
setting goals for each community based on their share of the region’s projected affordable housing
needs. If the City elects to continue its participation in the LCA beyond 2010, it must establish new
affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the next decade. For the City of St. Louis Park, the Met
Council has determined the fair share of the region’s affordable housing and life-cycle need for 2011-
2020 as follows:
Affordable Housing Goal: 326 to 501 units
Life-Cycle Housing Goal: 500 to 1000 units
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
The Metropolitan Council considers a unit affordable if it is priced at or below 30% of gross income
of a household earning 60% of the Twin Cities' median family income (or $50,400 for a family of 4
in 2010).
Life-cycle housing is a very general category that simply means the City expects to accommodate 500
– 1000 dwelling units over the next decade and that these units will include a variety of housing
types and densities to meet residents’ changing housing needs and preferences that change over our
life times.
Methodology:
The Council arrived at these numbers by under going a study to determine the affordable housing
need in the Metropolitan Area during the decade 2011 – 2020. The study determines each
community’s share of the metropolitan area’s regional need. In determining the overall affordable
housing need for the Twin Cities, the Metropolitan Council tied forecasted affordable housing need
to four criteria related to household growth potential, ratio of local low-wage jobs to low-wage
workers, current provision of affordable housing, and transit service. These four criteria are addressed
in the formula through the following questions:
1. How much household growth is a community planning to absorb from 2011 to 2020?
2. What is the relative balance of low-wage jobs based in the area vs. low-wage working
residents?
3. To what extent does a community offer affordable housing now?
4. What level of transit service is available in a community?
By following this approach, the Metropolitan Council is allocating the region’s forecasted affordable
housing need in a manner that is consistent with overall goals to guide growth within the urbanized
portion of the Twin Cities.
Although the Met Council fully supports the need for the total number of new affordable units over
the next decade, it also acknowledges the reality of limited funding available to create new affordable
housing opportunities. This is the reason that the Council has established its LCA affordable
housing goal for the City as a range of 326 to 501 units for the period 2011 to 2020. The low end
of the range represents the number of units that can be accomplished at currently available funding
levels region wide.
Regarding the City’s life-cycle goal to diversify the type and density of housing to meet resident’s
changing housing needs and preferences, the Met Council goal range for the City is 500 to 1000
units over the next decade. The low end of the range represents the community’s total share of the
region’s affordable housing need and the high end is the potential number of units permitted by the
land use guiding in the City’s 2030 Plan Update for medium, high, mixed use, redevelopment,
TOD or similarly named residential development, or the total forecasted household growth for the
community to 2020, whichever number is less.
The affordable and life-cycle goal information is provided to assist communities in determining the
housing goals and objectives to be included in the housing element of their Comprehensive Land
Use Plans. Although adoption of the goals does not in any way commit the City to achieve the
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
targets established by the Met Council, conveying need numbers to communities is meant to help
cities plan their role in addressing their share of the forecasted regional affordable housing need.
Foremost among these efforts, from the Met Council’s perspective, is the guiding of sufficient land
for the development of new housing that may provide the opportunity for the production of
affordable units. The City’s current planned redevelopment areas have a sufficient amount of land
designated for medium and high density residential to accommodate a minimum of 650 housing
units, with the potential of more than 1,600 housing units, depending upon the density at which
these sites are developed. These future housing units provide adequate opportunity to develop
affordable housing that would meet the community’s share of the region’s future projected
affordable housing needs if the City chooses to do so.
To make official the City’s decision to continue participation in the LCA, the Met Council is asking
the City to adopt these new affordable and life-cycle housing goal ranges, by passing a resolution that
incorporates the numbers described above. Additionally, before December 1, 2010 the City must
develop a Housing Action Plan outlining the steps the City will take to help meet its LCA goals.
Met Council has indicated that the Action Plan should be reflective of the housing implementation
section of the City’s Comprehensive 2030 Plan Update that was recently approved by both the City
Council and the Met Council. Again, Met Council staff emphasized that participation in the LCA
program is voluntary, that adoption of the new goals does not obligate the City to achieve the goals
and that it is entirely at the Council’s discretion as to how aggressive they want to be in attaining the
established goals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time. Attachment A provides a list of funded LCA grants from 1996 to 2009
that the City has received.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Affordable and life cycle housing is addressed in the City Councils adopted Strategic Direction - St.
Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. In particular, the
City’s focus will be on the three following strategies: remodeling and expanding move-up, single-
family, owner-occupied homes; property maintenance to foster quality housing and community
aesthetics and; working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
Attachments: Funded and Unfunded Projects/Grants
2011 – 2010 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township
Resolution Electing to Continue Participation in the LHA Program
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 4
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPAT IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 473.25
to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address
housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes
section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing
Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide certain funding and
other assistance to metropolitan-area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under
the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup
funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development unless the
municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota
Statutes section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to
negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that
municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided
in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, previously negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for municipalities
participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program expire in 2010; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate
in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality
successfully negotiate new affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; (c) the
Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals
for the municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or distribute to the
Local Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities
Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of St. Louis Park motion to
adopt Resolution No. -----:
1. Electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act for calendar years 2011 through 2020.
2. Agreeing to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years 2011
through 2020:
Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goals Range
326 to 501
500 to 1000
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a Housing Action identifying the actions
it plans to take to help meet its established housing goals.
Approved: ___________ ___, 2010.
By: By:
Mayor Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 7
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4l
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Reappointment of Youth Representative to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reappoint Isabella Stewart as a Youth Commissioner to the Human Rights Commission
for the term ending August 31, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to reappoint the Youth Commissioner listed above to serve another term to
their respective Commission?
BACKGROUND:
The term of the Youth Commissioner listed above will expire on August 31, 2011. The staff liaison
has been consulted and this Youth Commissioner has indicated that she wishes to be reappointed to
a new one year term.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a
connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4m
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 August 14, 2010 through September 3,
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
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
340.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
340.00
567.92WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEA&K EQUIPMENT CO INC
567.92
106.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
106.09
75.01STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
75.01
21.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
21.59
2,600.00YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
2,600.00
19.48-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSACE SUPPLY CO
388.04REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
368.56
3,310.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYACTION FLEET INC
181.69GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,492.16
528.30CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAECOM INC
99,396.74REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
99,925.04
3,660.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAERIAL PAINTING INC
3,660.00
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAKERS, NATHAN
362.50
21.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSALBRECHT, MARY
21.00
799.64SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
799.64
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
65.50POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
65.50
80.16GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
233.22PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
153.22PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
125.76ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.47VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
88.59WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
88.59SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
14.79STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
934.80
722.05BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
722.05
980.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGAPWA MN CHAPTER
490.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,470.00
387.01NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
387.01
1,193.102008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSARCA MINNESOTA INC
1,193.10
454.50OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
454.50
32.19COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
32.19
70.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSATSSA
70.00
3,441.85WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
3,441.85
65.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
65.79
54.21INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALB&D PLUMBING & HEATING
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
54.21
108.40BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMANS
108.40
90.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBATTERIES PLUS
90.83
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEBEDNARSKI, DANIEL
40.00
64.30REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBENSON, JANET
64.30
58.80REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBETLACH, PATTI
58.80
47.03VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBG AUTOMOTIVE OF MINNESOTA
47.03
124.50ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
124.50
581.40PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOHN WELDING INC
581.40
499.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
499.07
707.11EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBRETZA, KIMBERLY
707.11
6,248.64ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
855.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
399.61RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,503.25
2,587.05EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONCAPECCHI, MICHAEL
2,587.05
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUECARLSON-ANACKER, KATY
40.00
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,007.83IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,007.83
20,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERV
20,000.00
8,961.05TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
8,961.05
18,697.04DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
2,340.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25,400.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
46,437.04
35.52GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
2.03SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
185.00SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
222.55
11,019.78ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
11,019.78
677.66SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
677.66
10,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,000.00
102.75PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCHRYSLER JEEP
102.75
27.02-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
103.62ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.96ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
39.95ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
211.64ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
1,160.93HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
130.07HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
279.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
375.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAINING
37.08DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
450.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
29.64FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
350.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAINING
591.39PATROLTRAINING
133.62ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8.95COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL POSTAGE
279.40Justice Assistance Grant -2005 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
310.80OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
122.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
279.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
18.85OPERATIONSTRAINING
109.90INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.19INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
37.70-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,505.75ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
450.22SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
831.70SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
109.82SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
409.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
1,322.52ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
6.68WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
236.49WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
44.00WESTWOOD G & A POSTAGE
42.23OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
232.78BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
433.91AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
109.06AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
283.00LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
96.86CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
14.99CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
48.24TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
111.61TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
48.36OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING MEETING EXPENSE
1,930.17PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34.33MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
13,439.71
207.00CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
207.00
16,636.60ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16,636.60
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
159.95
4,612.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
4,612.50
8.50SUPPORT SERVICES G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARCONERY, NANCY
8.50
410.33AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
410.33
84.87REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOPELAND, PATRICK
84.87
75.45REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOPOULS, ROBERT
75.45
375.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB
375.00
125.17POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
11.67NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
136.84
284.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCUSTOM HOSE TECH INC
284.96
19,072.64WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
19,072.64
675.18GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
7,714.52GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER
1,127.06BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9,516.76
76.32REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDAWSON, PATRICK
76.32
215.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDESARMEAUX, LARRY
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
215.00
4,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWDEVORE, JENNIFER
4,000.00
36.34ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSDISCOUNT STEEL INC
36.34
962.96PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
7,386.12PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,349.08
356.35SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
356.35
39.78OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESDOBESH, MICHAEL
39.78
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEDOHERTY, SARA
40.00
68.79REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDOUGHTY, ANNIE
68.79
71.95SPECIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESDUNDEE NURSERY
71.95
2,240.15BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
2,240.15
1,050.38WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
1,050.38
218.30PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
218.30
85.94INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALENHANCED HOME SYSTEMS
85.94
112.66PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEM
112.66
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
131.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
210.55GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
341.88
20.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFASTENAL COMPANY
230.69PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
251.32
88.50ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFECHNER, MARTY
88.50
625.00SUMMER THEATER ARTS CAMP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFEINBERG, SARA
625.00
35,600.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION CURRENTFULL CIRCLE EQUITIES LLC
35,600.00
923.13EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGARLAND, MIKAEL
923.13
379.00ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
488.58BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
867.58
375.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
375.00
955.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
955.55
100.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRAGE, ANDREA
100.00
494.16GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
2,517.10MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,011.26
157.11WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
157.11
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
85.73REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGROSSMAN, BARBARA ANN
85.73
5,100.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
5,100.00
225.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
225.00
2,330.36AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
13,850.08WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
16,180.44
60.39-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHCI CHEMTEC INC
938.79MOWINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
878.40
462.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHEDBERG AGGREGATES
462.86
1,410.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHEEBINK ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK
1,410.00
200.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
200.00
536.29POLICE G & A OTHER RECOVERIESHENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFF
536.29
430.55IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,726.55
4,487.20MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,487.20
837.17POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS ACCTG
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
837.17
7,816.50POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
20.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
410.52PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
8,247.02
201.99MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHENRICKSEN PSG
201.99
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHERKENHOFF, KIRSTEN
40.00
725.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHISLOP, DANIEL
258.00-EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
467.00
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHOLDEN, LAURE
40.00
20.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
478.58GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.19GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
256.19GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
45.91ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
228.31PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
113.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.84WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
77.22WATER UTILITY G&A LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES
82.67WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
327.31WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
26.35SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.43SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
41.45SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
210.11SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
184.90STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,126.46
32.13ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
4.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.61WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
21.15WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
13.11SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.57STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.82
100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
525.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
625.00
912.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
912.00
116.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
147.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
325.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
588.00
47.01PATCHING-PERMANENT GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
20.37STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
67.38
89.07REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHUNTER, MARY
89.07
35.77PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
35.77
1,570.25EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,570.25
31.27INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESICC
31.27
2,651.63IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
2,651.63
1,154.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,154.95
60.15WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDELCO
60.15
534.38TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
534.38
68.93ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESINNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS
68.93
2,447.79IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,447.79
4,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINTERACT CENTER
4,000.00
756.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
756.82
90.03ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
64.11POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
154.14
129.05ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTJ & F REDDY RENTS
129.05
86.94IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
102.17TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
189.11
2,022.81WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
2,022.81
550.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
550.00
101.10WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
101.10
30,044.91ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON
934.16CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
30,979.07
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
75.45REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKELLOGG, JIM
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
75.45
416.00ESCROWSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
6,076.60SUNSET RIDGE BOND ISSUE COSTS
2,498.452003 GO IMPROVE DEBT SERV G&A BOND ISSUE COSTS
1,729.772010A UTIL REV BONDS BOND ISSUE COSTS
1,695.522010A UTIL REV BONDS BOND ISSUE COSTS
2,135.76STORM WATER REV BOND G & A BOND ISSUE COSTS
14,552.10
42,248.18GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKKE ARCHITECTS INC
42,248.18
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWKNOTZ, CHAD & REBECCA
5,000.00
40.00SOCCERPROGRAM REVENUEKUECHLE, SUNDEE
40.00
61.98REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKUENZI, RUSSELL & JOAN
61.98
3,351.34POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTKUSTOM SIGNALS INC
3,351.34
17.28POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
177.78PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
195.06
2,352.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,352.00
431.99GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
431.99
47.50INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALLEACH, ROBERT
47.50
769.47UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
769.47
357.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLEE, KATIE
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
357.00
70.38REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLIPSCHULTZ, ELLEN
70.38
48,249.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
147.24SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
30,239.28TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
78,635.52
89.93REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORENTZ, SCOTT & JODI
89.93
280.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORINSER, ANTHONY
280.00
83.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
360.17SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
443.24
100.00TV PRODUCTION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMACTA
100.00
173.76SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
150.19SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
387.90SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.19SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
491.56SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,353.60
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMCBRIAN, CORY
1,000.00
96.19PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
96.19
160.00POLICE G & A TRAININGMCPA
160.00
65.46REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCQUILLAN, BARB
65.46
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
50.11WIRING REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
40.15PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
12.99WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.03WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
114.94PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
267.22
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALMETRO HEATING & COOLING
48.00
303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
303,683.28
88.29REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMEYER, RODNEY
88.29
287.47E-911 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
138.33E-911 PROGRAM OTHER
222.06SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER
87.94TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
735.80
18,258.11SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
18,258.11
4,861.45WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
4,861.45
1,082.60NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD A
1,082.60
6,000.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER &
6,000.00
695.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
695.00
675.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA AWWA
675.00
1,483.04EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,483.04
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
29.50WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS
29.50
176.34TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
176.34
809.19SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
809.19
7.23-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMINVALCO INC
112.39H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
105.16
1,606.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
1,606.09
265.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
265.00
30.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMYERS TIRE SUPPLY CO
103.46PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.64GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
160.81
1.17GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
955.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
236.19PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
67.59GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.90WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,265.77
2,214.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICENEENAH FOUNDREY
2,214.45
80.27ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
157.58HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
386.58RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
73.27ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
124.46FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
293.80EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
1,113.19POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
526.62OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
73.27INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
267.37ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
453.42PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
168.54PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
399.04ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
353.51PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
78.61ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
308.53WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
73.27REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
74.43VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
371.28WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
160.82SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
39.46SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
5,577.32
564.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTNORTH WORKS OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
564.00
275.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER APA
275.00
11,380.12COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
11,380.12
194.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
194.80
109.11SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT
23.14ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.28FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,949.27GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
164.06POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
52.32PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
15.90INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
187.82PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.85PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
126.18ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.85PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.84ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
62.55WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.85VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3.85WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
73.62SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2,848.49
500.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
500.00
277.56OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOHLIN SALES INC
277.56
539.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
539.62
390.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOLSON, JEFFERY
390.00
156.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROLSON, REN
156.00
267.03PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
96.18NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
363.21
40.00RENTALRENT REVENUEPALBICKI, DOUG
40.00
1,800.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
1,800.00
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPETERSON, ABBEY
40.00
18.34OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
6.43OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6.30PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.60PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
6.00SAFETY SERVICES SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
23.97SAFETY SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE
15.02ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.02ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6.00ENGINEERING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.94WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.41WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23.36SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.09SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.75SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
225.23
198.50GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEPLAYWORKS
198.50
1,139.41PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
1,139.41
227.58WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
227.58SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
227.58SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
227.59STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
910.33
181.90STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
181.90
14,966.78TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
14,966.78
108.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
108.00
735.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
735.00
226.17WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
5,399.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,625.67
1,389.38ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESQUALITY METALCRAFTS INC
1,389.38
3,896.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
3,896.50
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.31VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
25.31
280.59IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
2,567.59COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
2,848.18
2,808.08FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
985.80REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
854.15SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,648.03
58.25WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
58.24SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
58.25SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
58.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
232.98
95.15REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREIERSGORD, CAMILLA
95.15
87.47REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRICHMOND, JULIE
87.47
2,341.86WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
2,341.86
666.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROCKET CRANE SERVICES INC
666.00
1,281.75PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYROGERS ENTERPRISES INC
1,281.75
294.98STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
294.98
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUPLIN, THOMAS
162.50
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSALMELA, SUE
2,500.00
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.94ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
96.86SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
742.64SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.92WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6,044.60CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
6,903.96
679.46SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
987.46
500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSEIFERT, MARY
500.00
2,126.81TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS INC.
2,126.81
5,576.88PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHAW/STEWART LUMBER CO
5,576.88
115.10PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
115.10
152.46PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
152.46
20,748.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIDEWALKS PLUS
20,748.00
38.48GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
38.48
20.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUESLAUGHTER, NICOLE
20.00
1,505.44EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,505.44
1,075.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, PERRY
1,075.00
222.94REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSNOOK, TOM & ANDREA
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
222.94
1,628.65TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSPECTRA
1,628.65
1,456.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,456.00
79.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSPS COMPANIES INC
292.68BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
147.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
519.32
1,278.53PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
1,278.53
89.93REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEIGER, HAROLD & GAYLE
89.93
423.84REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEPHANSEN, JOHN
423.84
1,217.02PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSTORAGE SOLUTIONS USA LLC
1,217.02
133.47POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
133.47
60.30PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
60.30
107.25STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUN NEWSPAPERS
107.25
403,711.44SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSN
403,711.44
500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSWENSON, CHERYL
500.00
1,712.13PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSYLVA CORPORATION INC
1,712.13
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.41POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
7.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11.76WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.67SUMMER THEATER ARTS CAMP GENERAL SUPPLIES
68.93OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
148.77
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTEA2
225.00
39.99ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
39.99
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
1,150.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
1,150.00
1,876.88TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENTTHE GREEN SHEET INC
1,876.88
274.83REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHERMASTOR PRODUCTS GROUP
274.83
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUETHOE, MICHELLE
40.00
55.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGTILTON, JOHN
55.00
440.00ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
440.00
538.36SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
538.36
73.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTORGESON, MARIAN
73.86
60,534.02Federal EECBG Grant Project IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITRAFFIC CONTROL CORP
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
60,534.02
150.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, KYLE
150.00
556.90Justice Assistance Grant -2005 TRAVEL/MEETINGSTRAVEL PLANNERS
556.90
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREHUS
450.00
96.55GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
96.55
552.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC
552.09
3,519.95PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
3,519.95
95.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
95.00
21,620.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESUHL CO INC
21,620.00
475.81POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
506.32POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
982.13
993.34SEWER UTILITY G&A RENTAL EQUIPMENTUNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC
993.34
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
110.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
110.00
6,130.35TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
6,130.35
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEUPS STORE
1,516.94WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,528.50
615.34SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSUSA BLUE BOOK
615.34
122.52POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
122.52
65.34OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
13.48SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.82
271,469.49CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
271,469.49
213.57WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
213.57
247.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSVOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS' BENEFI
247.00
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEWALKER, TINA
40.00
177.12GRANTSGARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
945.14SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
57,262.49SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
23,881.65SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
30,595.36SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
11,467.67SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
124,329.43
3,034.10CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
3,034.10
667.97UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSWEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN
667.97
22,610.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWEBER ELECTRIC INC
22,610.00
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
88.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWHEELER'S AUTOBODY SUPPLY
5.67-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
82.50
50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHIPPS, MATTHEW
50.00
858.20MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
858.20
102.60GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESWIPERS & WIPES INC
95.48MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGS
198.08
85.73REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLGEMUTH, KARLA & CRAIG
85.73
20.85OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
32,253.44PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,451.52PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
30.53BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
106.10WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
36,147.47WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,719.82REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,314.62SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,940.08STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
80,984.43
73.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESYAROSH, DAVID & BETSY
73.86
14,037.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
14,037.25
1,771.99DAMAGE REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC
1,771.99
40.75WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
121.10BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
161.85
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
9/1/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:20:07R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
9/3/2010 -8/14/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
295.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
295.60
118.54AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZIP PRINTING
118.54
Report Totals 2,100,597.63
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4n
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 21, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Ford (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of July 7, 2010
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of July 7, 2010. Commissioner
Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Commissioner
Kramer abstained).
3. Hearings
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Multiple-Family Residential in Office District
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-22-ZA
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She explained
that the Office district allows multiple-family residential by Planned Unit Development.
The proposal is to modify some of the specific requirements by which it is allowed. Those
include allowing residential uses on the first and second floors and to remove the overall
density limits. She reviewed the four areas zoned for office within the city. She commented
if there is one area in the city where higher density for residential makes sense, it really is the
Office zoning district.
Ms. McMonigal concluded by saying the proposal would remove the restriction for density
and for limitations on the uses on the first and second floors. This serves to allow the highest
density multiple-family residential where it is most appropriate. It removes the requirement
for mixed-use within a building. There is still horizontal mixed-use throughout the site by
having a variety of uses in the office parks, and it allows the private marketplace to provide
housing in these office areas.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2010
Commissioner Robertson said he did not understand the request for housing units on the
first floor. He said he understood making the entire building residential in nature. He said
he’s been commenting for awhile about the inconsistencies throughout zoning between
commercial, mixed-use and office. He said this proposal is kind of pushing it back the
opposite direction of where he’s been wanting the mixed-use to go. He asked why this is
coming before the city and what is precipitating the request for residential units on the
ground floor.
Ms. McMonigal responded there is a proposal for a multiple-family residential building in
the West End office district. In that proposal there are not units proposed for the first floor
and the proposed change would not require that there are units on the first floor. A mixed-
use building could be done; it just wouldn’t be absolutely required. She explained that
provision would not be necessary; it’s just the idea of making it easier for the marketplace to
have fewer limitations to be able to build a separate office building. She said typically these
buildings do have the common areas, or the work-out room and the offices on the first floor.
In the proposal there is parking on the ground floor.
Commissioner Robertson said he was fine with the change to items d. and h., but doesn’t see
deleting item e. regarding the first floor, as a worthwhile change. He commented that there
was a reason for including e. in the code, especially if the proposed multiple-family
residential doesn’t have a need to change item e.
Commissioner Kramer said he thought ground floor living is inappropriate in that area. He
said he’d be in favor of dwelling units on the first floor if the first floor were elevated six or
eight feet, similar to Excelsior & Grand. He was fine with the other two changes proposed.
Commissioner Morris said if the proposal is just about changing the ordinance and
identifying anomalies as the business market is changed, he agrees with Commissioner
Kramer that it is not appropriate to have ground floor apartments in an office building. He
said if the most accessible units for residents are going to be common rooms, meeting rooms,
gyms, etc., maybe they should be on the second floor but then if it is only 25% which is
limiting, maybe 75 % would be more appropriate for the second floor. He said he doesn’t
see the three proposed changes are benefitting residential uses in the office district. He said
he could see some tweaking of the ordinance. In regards to item h. he said he felt there
shouldn’t be unlimited ability to increase the percentage of maximum density. He asked the
reason why the current 50% would be unnecessary.
Ms. McMonigal said the intent was to remove the upper limit. Typically any particular site
will have limits on what can actually be built on the site. An upper limit was not being
proposed. She said in any case it would all have to be approved under a PUD. She added
that a lot of review goes into approving a development and there is discretion by the city on
how much increased density would be allowed.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2010
She said the intent regarding housing related uses (item d) is to promote mixed-use
buildings. The idea is to allow housing related uses on the first and second floor, regardless
of what they are, if there are common space, work-out space, or parking, or units, the intent
is to remove the restriction that there has to be another use within the building.
Chair Person asked if there would be no upper limit on height.
Ms. McMonigal stated there is a height limit in the Office district, which is 240 feet (about
22 stories).
Commissioner Shapiro said he felt the market should determine what actually gets built. If
residential is going to be allowed in an office area, they should be able to build dwelling units
on the first or second floor in an urban area. He said if apartments are built and no one rents
them, it’s the developer’s problem and they will figure out something else to put there.
Commissioner Robertson said he disagreed a little bit, in that planning is about thinking a
little bit ahead instead of responding to what the market is doing today. It’s necessary to
respect the market but we don’t just say if the market wants it we will do it. Commissioner
Robertson said in response to the number of units, the limiting factor on any development of
any size is always parking. Since St. Louis Park has a 1 car/1 bedroom policy, no matter what
site, parking will limit the number of units.
Ms. McMonigal said the proposed changes try to keep the ordinance in place but tweak it to
make it work a little bit better, and not completely let go of the requirements we do have.
She spoke about the PUD review which will allow the city to look much more closely at the
actual building design and site requirements.
Commissioner Carper said he agreed with Commissioner Shapiro that the market will decide
what is appropriate for the first floor. He said the West End seems to be the right location
for this kind of residential. The proposed amendments are the right modifications to the
zoning as far as he is concerned.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Kramer spoke about first floor dwelling units and the market. He said if
dwelling units are built on the first floor they won’t be converted to something else. The
price will get adjusted to something lower. If they get built they will be used as residential
but he doesn’t think it is the right thing to have on the first floor.
Commissioner Robertson said he would probably vote against the proposed amendment.
He agrees with the first (item d)and third (item h)changes, but not the second change
(deleting item e. regarding no dwelling units located below the second story of the building).
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the draft
zoning ordinance amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office zoning district.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2010
Commissioner Shapiro seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-3
(Commissioners Kramer, Morris and Robertson opposed).
4. Other Business
A. Discuss interest in meeting with City Council
Commissioners indicated they were interested in meeting with the Council.
Commissioner Kramer stated he would like to know the discussion topics and would
like to have a meaningful, open dialogue. Commissioners spoke about interest in
discussion topics such as the superior transit designation, cluster housing/row
housing/townhouse definitions, mixed-use definition, and setbacks from single
family homes for drive-through.
B. Henn. Co. Project Management Team on Freight Rail Relocation Study
Commissioner Johnston-Madison spoke about the committee. Ms. McMonigal said
the first meeting of the project management team will be held at City Hall on July
22nd. Several neighborhoods will be represented as well as agencies, railroads, school
board, county, and city. She said an official environmental assessment worksheet will
be completed to make determinations of impacts and mitigation measures.
Commissioner Carper said he will be representing the Lake Forest neighborhood on
the project management team.
5. Communications
A. Distribute copies of Comprehensive Plan
Ms. McMonigal distributed copies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which was
adopted on December 21, 2009.
B. Commissioner Carper asked that follow-up notification be provided to the Planning
Commission on City Council decisions on items which have come before the
Commission. Ms. McMonigal said that communication will be provided to the
Commission in the future.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: September 7, 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 and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to
Chapter 15 of City Code concerning charitable gambling regulations in St. Louis Park and to set
second reading for September 20, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 15 relating to the
following:
• Increasing the local gambling tax to 1.25% to cover administrative expenses the City experiences
relating to charitable gambling.
• Requiring charitable gambling organizations to contribute to a 10% Contribution Fund with an
exemption for those organizations who expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures
within the City of St. Louis Park.
BACKGROUND:
Study Session discussions were held on this topic on April 12 and June 28 and an open house
meeting was held April 28 with charitable gambling managers. At these meetings, discussion took
place regarding lawful charitable gambling regulations, gambling authority, gambling proceed
expenditures, and gambling operations in St. Louis Park. Concerns and questions were raised by
Council members regarding charitable gambling and whether proceed expenditures are benefiting St.
Louis Park, and what legal authority the city has over lawful gambling requirements.
At the June 28 Study Session the City Council directed staff to analyze the expense involved in
administering charitable gambling activities and make recommendations regarding local gambling
tax adjustments to fully cover these expenses; and to prepare an ordinance amendment to require a
10% contribution to the City (as allowed by law) from charitable gambling organizations with an
exemption for those who contribute a designated percentage of their proceeds to eligible St. Louis
Park entities.
At the August 9 Study Session a written report was submitted to Council for review of the draft
ordinance amendments as proposed by staff and the city attorney.
Various licensed gambling organizations in St. Louis Park are aware of the proposed ordinance
amendment requirements and are expected to be in attendance for the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Based upon the direction provided by the City Council, Staff and the City Attorney have prepared
the following ordinance amendments (see attached draft ordinance):
Section 15-8 includes new language to require gambling organizations to contribute to a Fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from lawful gambling. The proposed ordinance states that organizations that expend 100%
of their lawful purposes expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park are exempt from making the
10% contribution. Additional language was added to clarify organizations with more than one site
to report their distribution of gambling proceeds from each site separately.
Section 15-9 will increase the local gambling tax to 0.0125 percent (one and one quarter percent)
from 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) to cover administrative expenses of the City of St.
Louis Park.
ANALYSIS:
10% City Contribution Fund
State law allows cities to require licensed organizations to contribute up to 10% per year of net
profits (gross profits minus all expenses and any local and state taxes) from local lawful gambling to a
city administered fund to be spent only for charitable contributions allowed by state law.
As noted earlier, it is proposed that an exemption to the 10% contribution be provided to those
organizations that provide 100% of the lawful purpose expenditures in St. Louis Park. As noted
below in the section titled “City Attorney Legal Opinion on 10% Contribution”, an exemption
could be provided for those organizations that expend all or a high percentage of their net profits on
activities in St. Louis Park. Staff is suggesting 100% to insure as little question as possible regarding
an exemption provision and also to provide for the ease of administration in determining whether an
exemption is applicable for a charitable gambling operator in the city.
There are a number of allowable purposes for the 10% Contribution Fund for Council to consider.
An estimate Staff prepared based on 2009 actual data shows that as much as $35,000-$40,000 could
potentially be contributed to the fund each year. However, based on the exemption percentage
proposed, the exemption could substantially reduce this amount. Based on the proposed exemption
and past gambling donation history, it is estimated the City would receive less than $20,000 per year
via the 10% contribution requirement. Attached to this report is a projection of the 10%
Contribution Fund calculations with the proposed exemption included.
Cities who establish a 10% Contribution Fund must file a report each year on or before March 15th
with the State Gambling Control Board to report the amount received and a detail listing of how the
funds were disbursed. A reasonable fund balance can be carried forward to the following year.
All disbursements from the 10% Contribution Fund must meet one of the following criteria:
A1 To 501(c)(3) organization or 501(c)(4) festival organization
A2 Relieving effects of poverty, homelessness, or disability
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
A3 Program for education, prevention, or treatment of problem gambling
A4 Public or private nonprofit school
A5 Scholarship fund
A6 Military service recognition (open to public) or support of active military
A7 Activities and facilities for youth
A10 Expenditures for police, fire, and other emergency or public safety-related services,
equipment, and training (not allowed- pension or retirement funds)
A11 Church
A13 With DNR approval, wildlife management projects/activities that benefit public-at-
large such as trails
A14 Nutritional programs, food shelves, and congregate dining programs primarily for
persons 62 and older or disabled
A15 Community arts organizations, or sponsorship of community arts program
A19 Humanitarian service – recognizing volunteerism or philanthropy
City Attorney Legal Opinion on 10% contribution
The statute states that the city may have an “ordinance requirement that such organizations must
contribute ten percent per year of their net profits." While not specifically addressed by the statute,
it is the opinion of the city attorney that an exemption for organizations that expend all or a high
percentage of their net profits on activities conducted in St Louis Park would probably not run afoul
of the statute or otherwise be illegal. There is the potential for the exemption to be successfully
challenged in court. However, given what is believed to be a good legal argument that the
exemption is permitted, the nature of the exemption and the amounts of money involved, it seems
like the risks to the city are minimal.
Gambling Reporting
Gambling organizations in St. Louis Park submit a monthly reporting form showing distributions of
proceeds and local tax due. Organizations are allowed to accumulate funds and are not required to
distribute proceeds on a monthly basis. Because many months there are no distributions made, staff
is proposing the 10% contribution be reported and submitted annually by January 31 of the
following year. Staff will present to council in March of each year the amount available for allowable
allocations.
Local Gambling Tax
Under State Statute, Minnesota Cities may impose a local gambling tax of up to 3% on licensed
organizations. The tax is calculated on the gross profits (gross receipts less prizes paid out), and the
tax can be imposed only to the extent necessary to cover costs incurred by the City to regulate
gambling activities.
At present, the City is collecting a local tax of one tenth of 1% (.001). For the first six months of
2010, this equated to $546.23. Based on past experience and staff’s analysis, the City can justify
annual costs of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 for the administration of charitable gambling.
Therefore, staff recommends to Council that the local gambling tax rate should be increased to
1.25% (.0125) in order to cover these administrative costs.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Lawful Purpose Expenditures
State Statute gives cities the authority to specify the percentage of lawful purpose expenditures to be
spent in their trade area. St. Louis Park City Code Section 15-8 requires each organization
conducting lawful gambling within the city to expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures
within the “trade area” of St. Louis Park which includes Minneapolis, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka,
Plymouth and Golden Valley. The city does not have authority on what specific lawful purpose
expenditures must be made. That authority rests with the organization and its membership.
Lawful purpose expenditure amounts include all taxes, fees, and charitable lawful purposes
contributions. Expenditures are determined from net profit after all prizes and allowable expenses
including payroll, rent, advertising, product, and office supplies are accounted for.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from the Finance Division calculations indicate revenue of approximately $12,000 per
year if the city required a 10% contribution fund and the proposed exemption, plus revenue from
the local gambling tax of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 a year to defray administrative
expenses.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: 10% Contribution Fund Projection with Proposed Exemption
Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Darla Monson, Finance Accountant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
10% Contribution Fund Projection
City of St. Louis Park Gambling Organizations
Gambling Activity from January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009
Organization/Site
1Contrib Fund
(up to 10% of Net
Profit)
2Exemption
Yes or No Charitable Donations
Community Charities
American Legion Post 282 $8,644 No
STEP, Friends of the Arts, MN Amer Legion Foundation, VA Medical
Ctr, MN Veterans Home, MN 4H, Muscular Dystrophy Assoc, Special
Olympics, Legionville Patrol Camp
Park Tavern $6,776 Yes Parktacular, SLP Comm Foundation
Texa Tonka Lanes $1,236 Yes SLP Youth Bowling (trophies, banquets)
Hopkins Raspberry Assoc.
Al's Bar (thru Jul 2009)$2,300 No Hopkins Raspberry, Parktacular, Educational Scholarship Bonds
Laredo's (Feb 2009 thru Dec 2009)$1,499 No Hopkins Raspberry, Parktacular, Educational Scholarship Bonds
SLP Hockey Boosters Assoc.
Bunny's $16,754 Yes SLP Hockey
Total Amount before Exemption $37,210
Estimated amount of 10%
Contribution Fund with Exemption $12,444
Notes:
2. The Exemption was determined based on donations reported over the past year.
1. The 10% Contribution Fund amounts are estimates based on 2009 actual data. Local Gambling Tax of 1.25% proposed in the ordinance has
been deducted from net profits for purposes of this calculation.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING GAMBLING
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 15-8 of the City Code is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
(a) Each organization licensed to conduct gambling within the city shall contribute to a fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from each individual site at which lawful gambling is conducted within the city. For
purposes of this section, net profits are profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses.
Organizations that expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose expenditures within the city of St.
Louis Park are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution to the city.
(b) Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90 percent of its
lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area. The
contribution required in subsection (a) above shall be considered as part of the 90 percent
expenditure. This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from
lawful gambling conducted on a premises within the city. At the end of each organization's fiscal
year, each organization must file with the city a report prepared by an independent certified public
accountant documenting compliance with the requirements of this section. In addition, each
organization must submit monthly to the city a completed Schedule C/D-LG1010.
SECTION 2. Section 15-9 of the City Code is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis a
local gambling tax in the amount of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) 0.0125 percent (one
and one quarter percent) of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less
prizes actually paid out by the organization. Payment shall be made no later than 25 days after the
end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the
Minnesota Department of Revenue.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Public Hearing First Reading September 7, 2010
Second Reading September 20, 2010
Summary Ordinance Published September 30, 2010
Ordinance takes effect October 15, 2010
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING GAMBLING
This ordinance amends the gambling licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park regarding
local gambling tax and distribution of proceeds. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after
publication.
Adopted by the City Council September 20, 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: September 30, 2010
Meeting Date: September 7, 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:
West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
• Motion to approve a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for The
Shops at West End allowing a multiple family dwelling in the Office district, subject to
conditions.
• Motion to approve a variance for shadowing based on the findings in the staff report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the proposed multiple family dwelling an appropriate use in the West End development?
• Does the request meet the criteria for granting a shadow variance?
• Does the City Council wish to approve the major PUD amendment and variance?
BACKGROUND:
In April 2008, the City Council approved the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the retail
portion of the West End project. At the time of the approval, a site for a 130-150 room hotel was
planned. This concept anticipated a building six stories tall, but a specific building plan was not
provided. The original approval anticipated a variance would be needed for the planned hotel
development and required a PUD major amendment for the site.
Multiple-Family Dwellings in the Office Zoning District
Multiple-family residential is a use allowed by PUD in the Office zoning district. Recent changes in
the Office zoning district allow a single building to be entirely residential and allow an increase in
density with a PUD.
Environmental Review
An AUAR (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) was completed in 2007. The AUAR studied the
impacts of various development scenarios on the environment, including (but not limited to) public
infrastructure systems for water, sewer, stormwater and road systems. The change from hotel to
multiple-family dwelling is within the parameters studied. A memorandum updating the AUAR
review is attached for your information.
Development Description
The Excelsior Group proposes a 6-story, 120-unit apartment building at 5310 16th Street West. The
1.07-acre (46,433 square feet) parcel is a part of the West End PUD. The West End PUD
previously anticipated a hotel with up to 150 rooms on this site.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
The building has five levels of residential units with an underground parking garage and structured
parking on the first level. The proposed building is six stories (67 - 77 feet) tall. The prominent
building elevation and main entrance face the southwest corner of the site at the intersection of 16th
Street and Duke Drive. The management offices, community room and exercise room are located in
this corner and provide a storefront window toward the intersection.
The proposed West End Apartment building will be an integral part of the overall West End PUD
mix of commercial and office uses. The mix of uses provides a walkable and desirable urban
residential environment. The development includes access to restaurants, entertainment, plazas, and
attractive pedestrian ways. The Luce Line and Southwest Regional Trails are within biking distance
for commuter and recreational purposes. The nearest parks are ½ mile from the site.
Process
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the variance. No one spoke at the public
hearing and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. The hearing notice
was mailed to surrounding property owners within 350 feet and published in the official newspaper.
Major PUD amendments require an affirmative vote by a 2/3 majority of all Council members (5 of
7).
SITE LOCATION:
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
ZONING ANALYSIS
Architectural Design Standards
Shadow Study
The architectural design guidelines limit the amount a building can shadow neighboring buildings.
A variance to the requirement is requested. The architect clearly describes the extent to which the
project will exceed the limits in the attached memorandum. An analysis of the requested variance is
provided later in this report.
Parking
The Zoning Code requires one parking stall for each bedroom in multiple family dwellings. The
plan includes 170 parking stalls in underground/ structured parking for 173 bedrooms. The
applicant proposes to provide five more parking stalls off-site in the existing Moneygram office tower
parking ramp to meet the minimum parking requirement.
The parking plan will meet the ordinance conditions that allow off-site parking (listed below),
provided the off-site parking arrangement is permanent and recorded with the Hennepin County
property records. The City Code requirements for residential off-site parking include:
1. Paved pedestrian access shall be provided and maintained between the off-site parking facility
and the principle structure.
2. The off-site parking facility shall be located no farther than 300 feet from a residential
structure.
3. Off-site parking facilities and shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable
covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy of the recorded
document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days after approval of
the agreement by the City Council.
An executed agreement between property owners for off-site parking will be a condition of approval.
The plan proposes the use of tandem parking stalls. These are stalls that may require moving one
vehicle in order to access the second. The parking garage is controlled by permits and assigned
spaces, so management may issue the two parking spaces to tenants of the same unit. The architect
provided several Minneapolis/St. Paul examples where this approach has been used. There are 30
pairs/60 parking stalls arranged in this configuration in the project.
In response to inquiries by City staff, the applicant has been working with Duke Realty / AD West
End to secure agreements to allow up to 30 overnight permit parking spaces in the adjacent
restaurant surface parking lots. These would provide a secondary alternative to residents leasing
tandem spaces.
Density
The proposed housing density is allowed to increase from 50 dwelling units per acre to 112.6 units
per acre, as proposed, at the discretion of the City Council. Parking is provided in underground or
aboveground structures. The building is placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street
parking is screened from the public right-of-way. Most of the apartment building ground coverage
contains structures six stories in height, except areas where 2nd floor terraces are provided.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The Office district DORA requirement is unique. In all other districts (multiple family,
commercial, and mixed use) the DORA requirement is a minimum of 12% of the land area. In the
Office district the minimum is 12% of the land area or 12% of the building area, whichever is
greater. The Office district also uniquely allows for DORA to be provided off-site.
For the West End Apartments, 12% of the lot area is 5,572 square feet and 12% of the building area
is 14,896. The West End Apartments plan provides 12,020 square feet (9.7% of the West End
Apartments building area) of DORA on-site with three terrace areas, sidewalk connections, outdoor
seating, etc. as further described in the landscaping section below. The remaining 2,876 square feet
(2.3%) required for this development is provided off-site by existing gathering spaces within the
overall Shops at West End PUD. The total DORA provided in the overall Shops at West End
development is 15% of the building area.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan for the West End Apartments site is limited, due to the building coverage.
The landscaping for the overall PUD has been approved and the plantings for this parcel add to the
approved counts. Both the site and the overall PUD rely on the alternative landscaping provisions to
satisfy the City Code requirements. The applicant provided a description of the alternative
landscaping below.
“Although the West End Apartments site is not very large, there are many high quality, aesthetically
pleasing people-space improvements proposed. There are public seating groupings along 16th Street
and the ‘Rainbow’ driveway. There is also an outdoor entry plaza at the south intersection of these
two roads. This plaza will contain benches, special paving, raised planting beds, flower pots and
bollards. In addition, three rooftop terraces are proposed – “pool deck”, “lawn terrace” & “skyline
deck”. The terraces will contain planters, arbors, grills, a swimming pool, fire pit, sunning deck,
lawn, and stone gardens.”
The overall West End PUD includes even more DORA including sidewalks, benches, pedestrian
lighting, a fountain, arcade, west end boulevard convertible plaza, Bee Way artwork and plaza,
Aurora Organ artwork, interior atriums in the movie theater and two existing office towers, transit
shelters and bus layover for future transit service on 16th Street, etc. Overall, the West End PUD
provides 3% more DORA than the minimum required.
Waste Storage
The trash will be managed inside the building. Trash rooms for the apartments will be located on
the first floor parking structure.
Zoning Compliance Table:
The following table calculates the standards based on the overall Shops at West End PUD, excluding
the future office development east of Utica Avenue. In several instances, staff notes the calculations
for the West End Apartments site alone, too. The zoning analysis shows the development complies
with the Office zoning district standards, with modifications as allowed with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD).
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use Office (with CUP/PUD)
Shopping Center (with PUD)
Multiple Family Residential
(with PUD)
Office (with CUP/PUD)
Shopping Center (with PUD)
Multiple Family Residential
Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres 35.12 acres Yes
Height 240 feet, None with PUD Existing Offices: 162 ft.
Shopping Center: 22 – 90 ft.
Multiple-Family Residential – 78 ft.
Yes
Building Materials Minimum 60% class I 60% class I Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.5, None with PUD
Overall Shops at West End PUD:
0.99 F.A.R.
West End Apartments alone:
3.9 F.A.R. (including parking)
Yes,
with
PUD
Housing Density 50 units per acre maximum,
No maximum with PUD
(with conditions)
112.6 units per acre
(conditions are met)
Yes,
with
PUD
Off-Street Parking See Parking Analysis Section Yes
Bicycle Parking 137 stalls 55 stalls, and 82 proof of parking Yes
Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area
(DORA)
12% of gross building area
Overall Shops at West End
PUD: 127,065 sq. ft.
West End Apartments alone:
14,896 sq. ft.
Overall Shops at West End PUD:
158,902 sq. ft. (15%)
West End Apartments alone:
12,020 sq. ft. on-site (9.7%)
2,876 sq. ft. off-site (2.3%)
Yes
Tree Replacement 744 caliper inches 1,427 caliper inches Yes
2,089 trees 815 trees
9,060 shrubs 5,318 shrubs
Landscaping
Alternative landscaping Outdoor plazas, public seating,
fountain(s), public art, bus shelters,
arcade with canopy, green roof
Yes
Setbacks None Varies Yes
Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Provided Yes
Sidewalks Required along all streets and
building frontages
Provided along all streets and
building frontages
Yes
Refuse handling Full screening required Within buildings or enclosed areas Yes
Transit service None required Served by routes 9, 604, 649 Yes
Stormwater Required management Provided underground Yes
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The PUD ordinance allows certain zoning standards to be modified. The West End included PUD
modifications for yards, parking and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). Additional PUD
Modifications requested for the West End Apartments include:
Floor Area Ratio
The proposed floor area ratio is 3.9 for the West End Apartments. The Office zoning district limits
the floor area ratio to 1.5 [Section 36-223(g)(2)].
Housing Density
The proposed housing density is 112.6 units per acre. The Office district limits the density to 50
units per acre, except with a PUD.
VARIANCE REQUEST:
The Architectural Design section of the Zoning Code requires that: “All developments shall consider
the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings. All new multiple-family and
nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a
shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two
hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.”
The proposed building complies with the zoning code from February 15 until October 15. There
are 123 days when the project shades more than 50% of the adjacent building façade for over two
hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.; therefore, it does not meet the ordinance criteria. A
variance has been applied for, and a narrative from the applicant is attached.
When the adjacent Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel was planned, the property owner understood
that the adjacent building would likely shadow his, and both designed the building accordingly
(fewer windows on the south side) and wrote a letter regarding the issue of shadowing (attached).
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
The City may grant variances provided criteria are met. Listed below are the criteria and findings.
The applicant provided arguments to support the shadow variance with the application (see
attached).
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional
topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot,
the strict application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using
such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot
is located.
The size of the parcel does not allow for density that was planned and appropriate for the overall
PUD unless a variance for shadowing is granted. In order to limit the shadowing impact to the
adjacent properties, the subject parcel could accommodate a building height of approximately 20
feet. A building height of approximately 20 feet would be inconsistent with the long-range plan
for the PUD (urban-themed area) that controls the subject parcel.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the
use district in which the land is located.
In order to build a structure in keeping with the spirit of the West End PUD, a mid-rise
building is appropriate for this area and site. The proposed building is a mid-rise building and as
a result, it will shadow a wall of an adjacent building – a hotel. The wall that will be shadowed
was built with the knowledge that some shadowing may occur. As a result, the hotel only has
windows on its south side for common hallways; there are no windows to individual hotel rooms
on the side that would be shadowed. This condition is peculiar to the immediately adjoining
property, and would not apply generally to other land or structures.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The property is currently zoned office and the overlying PUD contemplates a hotel, but the
proposed building is a 6-story apartment building. The requested variance is necessary for the
property owner’s ability to construct a building that is both consistent with the PUD, the
underlying, zoning, the planned building height, and consistent with the urban-themed area.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger
of fire, or endanger public safety.
The property owner of the hotel to the north (those properties impacted by the shadowing of the
proposed building on the subject parcel) is supportive of the proposed 60-80-foot high building
despite the fact that the hotel will be partially shadowed by the proposed building. Please see
attached letter from the hotel owner. The hotel building was designed to situate hotel rooms so
that the rooms or users would not be impacted and would have an adequate supply of light.
The traffic impacts of multiple family dwellings will be less than the planned hotel, and the road
improvements in 2009 mitigated the impact of West End development. Granting of the
variance will not impact the air supply of any outdoor recreation area of the adjacent properties.
The requested variance does not impact the fire danger or endanger the public safety.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of
the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
The requested variance will have no impact on the character and development of the
neighborhood, nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area. The requested variance will not in any way impair the health, safety or
comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter and the
comprehensive plan.
The City’s shadow restriction does not apply to buildings within the same PUD. The Hilton
Homewood Suites hotel was built by a different developer under its own PUD. However, the
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
planning for The Shops at West End was well along in the process and both projects were well
coordinated. In fact, the probable issue of shadows from the West End Apartments site onto the
Hilton Homewood Suites building was identified before development of both projects. The
owner and developer of the Hilton hotel was aware of the issue and provided a letter of support
to Duke Realty and the City of St. Louis Park.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary
to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
Given the size and shape of the parcel and the location of the buildings on adjacent properties,
granting the requested variance is the only way that a building that is consistent with the overall
vision of the PUD can be constructed on the subject parcel.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission and City staff recommend approval of a PUD major amendment to allow a
120-unit apartment building at 5310 16th St. W. The PUD major amendment also approves use of
five off-site parking stalls. The recommendation is subject to the conditions in the draft resolution.
Planning Commission and City staff recommend approval of the shadow variance based on the
findings in the staff report, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project has a relationship to the Councils Strategic Direction of providing a well
maintained and diverse housing stock.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution to approve a Major Amendment to The Shops At West End PUD
• Resolution to approve a shadow variance with conditions
• Excerpt of Planning Commission unofficial meeting minutes from August 18, 2010
• AUAR memorandum
• PUD application narrative from applicant
• Proposed parking agreement letter
• Shadow variance application narrative from applicant
o Letter of support from the adjacent property owner
o Shadow memo from architect
o Shadow study graphics
• Color site plan
• Site Plan/Roof Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Floor Plans
• Building Elevations
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040 and 09-064
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION
NOS. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, AND 09-064 RELATING TO A FINAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WEST END
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF INTERSTATE 394 AND HIGHWAY 100
The West End Redevelopment Project
WHEREAS, A.D. West End LLC has made application to the City Council for a Major
Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) for The West End Redevelopment
Project located at the southwest quadrant of Interstate 394 and Highway 100 and legally described
as THE SHOPS AT WEST END.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the effect of the proposed amendment 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. 08-057 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 28, 2008 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-128 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6,
2008 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-040 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated March 2,
2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-064 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 4, 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
Final PUD granted by Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, and 09-064, to add the
amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in
this resolution; and
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 10-23-PUD and 10-25-VAR 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 Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040,
and 09-064 are hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final
Planned Unit Development to the subject property at the location described above based on the
following conditions:
1. The uses on the subject property are limited to retail, service, restaurants, hotel, theater, and
office. The following uses are not allowed: in-vehicle sales and service (drive-through); motor
fuel stations; motor vehicle sales, service and repair; car washes; currency exchanges; check
cashing; pay loan agencies; pawnshops; sexually-oriented businesses, tattoo shops; gun shops
(not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of its sporting goods inventory, guns
and ammunition).
2. The final site plan and façade design of the large retail building on Lot 4, Block 1, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END (proposed grocery store) shall require a PUD Minor Amendment
with review by the Planning Commission.
3. The hotel site plans for Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END shall require a PUD
Major Amendment if any variances are requested. If the plan does not require a variance, the
application may be processed as a PUD Minor Amendment and include review and
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
4. The total gross floor area of restaurants shall be limited to 82,277 square feet.
5. The total number of seats in the movie theater shall be limited to 2,700 seats.
6. Tenants in Building 32 shall be limited to Mercantile (Group M) uses as defined in the 2007
Minnesota State Building Code, such as retail or wholesale stores, sales rooms, department
stores, drug stores, markets, etc.
7. The portion of the five-level retail parking structure (Building 35) that is within 20 feet of
the Gamble Drive right-of-way shall have a minimum of 60% Class I exterior materials. The
Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits to comply with this requirement.
8. The Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator or their designee(s) may
approve individual tenant/building façade designs administratively or refer proposals to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration, as City staff deems necessary.
9. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator
review and approval. Sign permits are required.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
10. Access to the truck courts on the west retail block from Park Place Boulevard shall be limited
to between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m.
11. The access will be controlled from Park Place Boulevard to the truck courts on the west retail
block using a mechanical bollard system and directional signs in the Park Place Boulevard
right-of-way. The Developer shall enter into a Planning Development Contract with the
City of St. Louis Park that addresses this private use of public land.
12. The Developer shall maintain horizontal separation from landscaping (i.e. boulevard trees) of
at least three feet from shallow underground utilities (i.e. fiber optic cable, private utilities,
etc.), and eight feet horizontal separation from deeper underground utilities (i.e. water,
sanitary sewer, etc.).
13. Tree plantings and street furnishings shall be located in a manner that maintains at least six
feet wide clearance space in all boulevard/sidewalk areas for snow removal.
14. The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits (The Shops at West End Design
Guidelines) to incorporate the following:
a. At pedestrian level, facades on Buildings 12, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32 and 33 shall be
primarily transparent:
1. At least 60% of facades between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor
elevation shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows
affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The West End
Tenant Design Guidelines shall illustrate the portions of the above referenced
buildings subject to this requirement.
2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum of three feet, but
display of merchandise in this space is allowed. Display windows may be
used to meet the transparency requirement.
b. At pedestrian level (between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation), building
facades facing public streets, West End Boulevard, or the pedestrian arcade shall have
no more than 10% of the total window area be glass block, mirrored, spandrel,
frosted or other opaque glass.
c. No more than 10% of the total window area of any building façade shall have signs
applied to the inside or outside surface of the window. The remaining 90% of
window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass that allows views into and
out of the building.
d. Tenants in Buildings 12, 22, 24, 31, and 33 that are located adjacent to public
and/or private street intersections shall locate entrances at or near the adjacent
building corner.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
e. Awnings and canopies shall be made of heavy canvas, fabric, metal and/or glass.
Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. Backlit awnings and canopies are
prohibited.
15. A business may use the sidewalk within five feet of its building wall for the following
purposes, provided the business maintains a clear walkway that is at least eight feet wide
along Park Place Boulevard and at least six feet wide along other streets, and provided the
uses do not occur in the public right-of-way unless the City approves an encroachment
agreement in accordance with the City’s Temporary Private Use of Public Land Policy:
a. Display of merchandise, not to exceed 100 square feet per business;
b. Benches, planters, ornaments, art;
c. Signs permitted in the zoning ordinance; and
d. Outdoor dining. Outdoor dining areas may extend farther than five-feet from the
building wall, provided tables and chairs or other structures maintain the required
horizontal clearance for a walkway between the dining area and other obstructions,
such as trees, poles, and curbs.
16. The Developer shall provide easements and $285,000 for public art to help satisfy the
alternative landscaping requirements. The City and the Developer will develop a public
process to select the artists, artworks and locations.
17. The Developer shall amend Official Exhibits (utility plans) to provide separate domestic and
fire water service lines to the buildings.
18. The developer shall work with the Police Department on the design and construction of the
police substation area in Building 31. In particular, the plan shall provide windows and
doorway on the northeast building elevation along the alley.
19. The developer shall redesign the public restroom entrances in the Building 31 atrium to have
open entrances (no exterior doors to the atrium), similar to typical stadium/movie theater
restroom entrances, as requested by the Police Department.
20. At City of St. Louis Park’s sole discretion, and upon conferring with the property owner, the
property owner shall change the designation of West End Boulevard on-street parking stalls
from short-term customer parking to “pick-up/drop-off only” (or similar restriction).
21. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain all permits from the City and other agencies.
22. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for all parking
structures.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
23. Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e. grocery store, hotel, etc.).
24. The property owner shall prepare and effectuate traffic management plans that reduce traffic
congestion. The property owner submitted a plan for review and approval of the by the St.
Louis Park and Golden Valley I-394 Joint Task Force. The property owner shall implement
The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) approved by the Travel Demand Management Joint
Task Force prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. The City and Developer shall set up a monitoring program to determine actual sanitary
sewer flows. Following each phase of the development, sewer flows will be analyzed to
determine if sewer flows exceed Metropolitan Council limits described in the Metropolitan
Council’s letter to the City of St. Louis Park dated December 14, 2006. If sanitary sewer
flows exceed said limits, the Developer shall submit a final design of a privately owned,
privately maintained, temporary sanitary sewer peak flow detention facilities for
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and City of St. Louis Park approval.
The Developer shall construct the said approved system and put it into operation in the
timeframe designated by MCES and City of St. Louis Park, and prior to City issuance of
building permits for additional phases.
26. The Developer shall abide by the City’s water use restrictions and follow State of Minnesota
requirements for low-flow structures. After each phase of the redevelopment, water usage
shall be monitored. If monitoring shows use exceeds 90% of peak capacity, the Developer
shall cooperate with the City to identify citywide and project-specific measures to increase
water treatment capacity and reduce consumption prior to City issuance of building permits.
27. The north office tower and operations center at 1551 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 86-14-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict
between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 86-14-SP Official
Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan and Lighting Plan;
Exhibit B – Grading Plan; Exhibit C – Utilities Plan; Exhibit D – Landscape Plan; Exhibit E
– Building Elevations; Exhibit F – Basement Floor Level Plan; Exhibit G – Ground Floor
Plan; Exhibit H – Second Floor Plan; and Exhibit I – Typical Floor Plan, as modified by
City Development on March 13, 1986. (The floor plans are included to show general use
and configurations only.)
28. The following conditions shall apply to the south office tower at 1600 Utica Avenue (Lot 1,
Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END):
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 98-42-PUD and 07-61-PUD. If there is any
conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following
98-42-PUD Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site
Plan, Exhibit B – Landscape Plan, Exhibit C – Existing Survey, Exhibit D –
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit E – Utility Plan, Exhibit F –
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
East Elevations, Exhibit G – North Elevation, Exhibit H – South Elevation, Exhibit
I – West Elevations, Exhibit J – West Elevation - Parking Ramp, and Exhibit K –
Parking Ramp elevation (south).
b. Parking ramp layouts and site plan shall provide designation of at least 20 bicycle
racks and at least 20 carpool spaces in convenient locations.
c. A covenant shall be recorded on the property which specifies that a minimum of
4,000 square feet of the atrium shall remain in perpetuity as indoor open space and
available for general “public” use. Said interior atrium space shall be designed in an
aesthetically pleasing and usable way, with landscaping, benches, and the like. A
detailed atrium plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Director and the Zoning Administrator.
d. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are re-authorized:
1. The floor area ratio for the PUD can be 1.57.
2. The setbacks on Gamble Drive for the parking ramp can be 17 feet.
3. Reduced office building setback along Gamble Drive of 96 feet.
29. The Chili’s restaurant site at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT
WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Applications 91-13-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict
between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 91-13-SP Official
Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Overall Site Plan, Exhibit B – Site
Plan, Exhibit C – Grading Plan, Exhibit D – Landscape Plan, Exhibit E – Floor Plan, and
Exhibit F and F-1 – Elevations.
30. The Olive Garden restaurant site at 5235 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 1, Block 1, THE SHOPS
AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Applications 93-9-CUP, 93-34-CUP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any
conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 93-9-CUP
and 93-34-CUP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A-1 – Site
Plan, Exhibit B – Utility Plan, Exhibit C-1 – Landscape Plan, and Exhibit D – Exterior
Elevations.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and
City that addresses, at a minimum:
1. Conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of gathering spaces in the development;
3. Private use of public land
4. Maintenance agreement and/or special service district;
5. Surety in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for Redeveloper Public
Improvements and landscaping; and
6. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development
Contract.
b. The Developer shall provide a surety to the City of St. Louis Park in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit for 1.10 times the estimated Redeveloper Public
Improvements costs (as defined in the Redevelopment Agreement), and 1.25 times
the estimated landscaping costs.
c. The property owner shall pay the applicable Traffic Management Administrative Fee.
1. The portion of the shopping center subject to this fee is on Lot 2, Block 2,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END. The total fee of $34,633 shall be paid to the
City of St. Louis Park prior to City issuance of building permits.
2. Subsequent phases of the PUD (future hotel and office towers) shall pay fifty
percent of the fee upon submission of a Final PUD Amendment application,
and the remaining fifty percent of the fee upon submission of a building
permit application, for each respective development phase.
32. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 6, 2008 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 08-32-PUD, including Exhibits C4B-Site Layout
Plan North, C8A-Utility Plan, C10B-Landscape Street Plan, A11101-Building 11
Overall Plan, A11111-Building 11 Level 1 Area 1, A111112-Building 11 Level 1
Area 2, A11401-Building 11 Exterior Elevations, such documents incorporated by
reference herein.
b. Overnight cart storage shall be inside the building.
c. The Developer shall continue to work with City staff through a public process to
select public art and the complete plaza design.
d. The Developer shall submit a site plan and programming plan for the plaza area to
the City for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
e. The building proposal includes graphic art panels in order to enhance the appearance
of the building and pedestrian environment. The Developer shall submit plans for
the graphics on the backlit translucent wall-mounted panels for review and approval
by the Zoning Administrator. The panels and/or graphics shall be changed from
time to time and at least biennially. The panel may include any mosaic, mural,
painting or graphic art or combination thereof which is professionally applied to the
panel that does not contain any brand name, product name, letters of the alphabet
spelling or abbreviating the name of any product, company, profession or business,
or any logo, trademark, trade name, or other commercial message (defined as
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
supergraphics in the City Sign Code and exempt from the Sign Code provisions).
The Developer shall allow use of the panels for public art. Proposed public art shall
be subject to review and approval by the Developer and building tenant(s).
f. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
g. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning
Administrator review and approval. Sign permits are required.
h. Approval of Building Permits, which may impose additional requirements.
i. A Planning Development Contract between the Developer and City shall be
amended to address, at a minimum:
1. Amended conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of the plaza gathering space;
3. Temporary uses of the plaza; and
4. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
33. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 4, 2009 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 2,
Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 09-07-VAR and 09-08-PUD relating to the Shops
at West End Sign Plan, such documents incorporated by reference herein.
34. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 7, 2010 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and adds the following conditions relating to Lot 3, Block 1,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The PUD major amendment is for the development of a six-story, 120-unit
apartment building with structured parking to be developed at 5310 16th Street W,
with five off-site parking stalls and 2,876 square feet of the designed outdoor
recreation area provided off-site.
b. The following PUD modifications, in addition to modifications previously
authorized for the overall Shops At West End PUD:
1. Floor area ratio of 3.9.
2. Housing density of 112.6 units per acre.
c. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Applications 10-23-PUD and 10-25-VAR relating to a
shadow variance, including Exhibits A100 Site Plan, AB101 Lower Level Garage
Plan, A101 First Floor Plan, A102 Second Floor Plan, A103 Floors 3-6 Typical
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
Floor Plan, A400 Exterior Elevations, A401 Exterior Elevations, L100 Landscape
Plan, such documents incorporated by reference herein.
d. The five (5) proposed off-site parking stalls shall be protected by an irrevocable
covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy of the recorded
document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days after
approval.
e. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1. The owner/applicant shall sign an Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained.
3. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
1. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances
and City policies.
2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees.
3. To ensure construction of the landscaping and the cleaning of public streets
during construction, a financial guarantee shall be provided in the amount
of 125% of the cost of the landscaping materials. The performance
guarantee shall be in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit. The
financial guarantee will be refunded upon project completion, however, a
25% will be retained for one year after installation to ensure the plants have
survived the warranty period.
4. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include means
to ensure it is fully screened from off-site view.
5. The proposed off-site parking facilities and shared parking facilities shall be
protected by an irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City
Attorney. The applicant shall submit a certified copy of the recorded
document to the Zoning Administrator.
g. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees.
3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighborhood properties.
4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
5. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a
public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the
determination by the Director of Public Works that appropriate safety
measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
h. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the following
shall be completed:
1. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
3. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated
that all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. To protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community, the painting of mechanical
equipment shall not be considered screening.
i. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within
48 hours.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-366(B)(1)G.
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO BUILDING DESIGN TO PERMIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDING THE SHADOW REGULATIONS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT
AT 5310 16TH STREET WEST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. The Excelsior Group, Inc. has applied for a variance from Section 36-366(b)(1)g. of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a Planned Unit Development exceeding the
shadow regulations for property located in the Office Zoning District at the following
location, to-wit:
Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
2. On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of the variance.
3. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and
welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of
fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the
effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use
the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase congestion in public streets,
increase fire danger, endanger public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
The size of the parcel does not allow for density that was planned and appropriate for the
overall PUD unless a variance for shadowing is granted. In order to meet the shadowing
impact to the adjacent properties, the subject parcel could accommodate a building height of
approximately 20 feet. A building height of approximately 20 feet would be inconsistent
with the long-range plan for the PUD that controls the subject parcel.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
The proposed 6-story building is appropriate for this area and site. The proposed mid-rise
building shadows a wall of an adjacent hotel building. The hotel building wall that will be
shadowed was built with the knowledge that some shadowing may occur. As a result, the
hotel only has windows on its south side for common hallways; there are no windows to
individual hotel rooms on the side that would be shadowed. This condition is peculiar to
the immediately adjoining property and would not apply generally to other land or
structures.
7. The property is currently zoned office and the overlying PUD contemplates a 6-story
building. The requested variance is necessary for the property owner’s ability to construct a
building that is both consistent with the PUD, the underlying zoning, and the planned
building height.
8. The property owner of the hotel to the north (the property impacted by the shadowing of
the proposed building) is supportive of the proposed building despite the fact that the hotel
will be partially shadowed by the proposed building. The hotel building was designed to
situate hotel rooms so that the rooms or users would not be impacted and would have an
adequate supply of light.
The traffic impacts of multiple family dwellings will be less than the previous hotel concept,
and the road improvements in 2009 mitigated the impact of West End development.
Granting of the variance will not impact the air supply of any outdoor recreation area of the
adjacent properties. The requested variance does not impact the fire danger or endanger the
public safety.
10. The requested variance will have no negative impacts on the character and development of
the neighborhood, nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in
the surrounding area. The requested variance will not in any way impair the health, safety or
comfort of the area.
11. The City’s shadow restriction does not apply to buildings within the same PUD. The
Hilton Homewood Suites hotel was built by a different developer under its own PUD.
However, the planning for The Shops at West End was well along in the process and both
projects were well coordinated. The probable issue of shadows from the West End
Apartments site onto the Hilton Homewood Suites building was identified before
development of both projects. The owner and developer of the Hilton hotel was aware of
the issue and provided a letter of support to Duke Realty and the City of St. Louis Park.
12. Given the size and shape of the parcel and the location of the buildings on adjacent
properties, granting the requested variance is the only way that a building that is consistent
with the overall vision of the PUD can be constructed on the subject parcel.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
13. The contents of Planning Case File 10-25-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance
is granted.
15. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for a variance from shadow regulations for 5310 16th Street West is granted based
upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition:
1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the West End Final PUD and City
zoning code.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
Unofficial Excerpts
Planning Commission
Aug. 18, 2010
3. Hearings
A. Major Amendment to PUD for Residential and Variance – The West End
Location: 5310 16th Street West
Applicant: The Excelsior Group
Case No.: 10-23-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Robertson asked if bicycle parking listed as one space/bedroom on the plans was a
typo and should be noted as one space/unit.
Mr. Walther responded one space/unit was correct, with a 10% increase above that.
Commissioner Carper asked if there would be some type of green roof on the proposed building.
Mr. Walther responded that the West End development is looked at as one large PUD. The
apartment building is consistent with the originally proposed hotel site development. The stormwater
has been mitigated through the West End development. He explained there is a large underground
system provided under the Rainbow parking lot. In the Brownie Lake watershed, which is the
subwatershed, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had a goal of reducing phosphorus by 12
lbs/year. The Shops at West End development and the stormwater system provided will reduce
phosphorus by 48 lbs/year. Mr. Walther said that while this project doesn’t include green roofs,
there were other environmental pieces included in the Shops at West development. He mentioned a
small demonstration green roof project near the second story offices on the west side of the Shops of
West End development. Mr. Walther added that there are some slot drains in the sidewalks along
the public streets that both capture some stormwater and help improve the life of the street trees
planted in that area.
David Bade, Duke Realty, introduced the project and said Duke is in partnership with the Excelsior
Group on The West End Apartments.
Chris Culp, Excelsior Group, provided background information on his company. He said the
expected demographic at the West End Apartments is age 27–37 and 55-65. He described the
development as luxury rental.
Commissioner Robertson stated he liked the project. He added that in a setting like this the DORA
(designed outdoor recreation area) is important and the terrace deck at the pool will be in shade most
of the time which limits its value as DORA, making the project a little bit weak. Other than that he
said it’s a very good project.
Mr. Culp responded that was a concern of his, too. He said they went through the shadow study and
deliberately put the sun deck portion as far north as possible.
Vice-Chair Morris asked if there is a desire to add residential components to the next phase.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance
Mr. Bade replied that is a possibility if the numbers make sense, given the current office market.
Vice-Chair Morris opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Shapiro said he supports the development and likes the way it looks. He said it fits in
well with the overall development.
Commissioner Carper said he thinks the proposed project is very well done. He said he is concerned
about the tandem parking arrangement.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the
West End PUD and a Variance for The West End Apartments at 5310 16th Street West.
Commissioner Shapiro seconded the motion.
Vice-Chair Morris stated he is not in favor of the major amendment for two reasons: 1) it doesn’t
bring forward any of the city’s housing goals; it’s not affordable housing; and 2) he doesn’t like an
apartment complex in the midst of a retail commercial business; it doesn’t feel residential. He said if
the rest of the development were to come around with residential it would have a better fit. It’s not
near trails or parks and has no outdoor amenities for residents. He doesn’t feel that it furthers the
city’s housing goals. He added it does fit all of the criteria but it took a zoning code change to make
it fit, and some variances. His personal opinion is that it is not a good fit for the entire
development.
Commissioner Robertson said that he understood Vice-Chair Morris’ comments but as far as the
housing goals going back to the Housing Summit of a few years ago, the major housing goal was for
larger single family homes. A major part of that housing study was that the city has a very good mix
of affordable housing. But the City doesn’t have a housing goal of creating more affordable housing.
Commissioner Robertson said as the city creates more housing it wants to create the right percentage
along with it that is affordable, but it really doesn’t have a lack of affordable housing. He said he
disagrees with part of Vice-Chair Morris’ premise on that.
The motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the West End PUD and a
Variance for The West End Apartments at 5310 16th Street West passed on a vote of 5-1 (Morris
opposed).
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 24
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 25
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 26
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 27
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 28
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 29
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 30
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 31
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 32
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 33
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 34
The Excelsior Group is proposing to construct a 6-story apartment building on a 1.06-acre parcel of land
within the West End Development. The parcel is located immediately south of a 7-story hotel and a
single-story restaurant. The parcel is immediately east of a single-story retail building (approximately
5,000 square feet) and a single-story grocery store. The property is immediately west of a parking lot
serving a single-story restaurant. The parcel is immediately north of a single story office building.
During different times of the year and different times of the day, the proposed 6-story apartment
building will cast shadow over the southern portion of the hotel building. The proposed building will not
cast non-complying shadows over any buildings to the west, east or south of it.
The portion of the hotel most shadowed by the proposed apartment building has windows that only
serve stairwells. The portion of the retail building that the proposed apartment building will shadow
does not contain windows.
This is the view of the hotel building to the
north of the proposed apartment building.
This is the portion of the hotel building that
will be most impacted by shadows from the
proposed apartment building. The windows
shown here are only windows for common
area hallways and are NOT windows for
hotel rooms.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 35
A. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional
topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the
strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties
or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The shape and size of the subject parcel are small – 1 acre. The size of the parcel does not allow
for density that is appropriate for the overall PUD unless a variance for shadowing is granted. In
order to limit the shadowing impact to the adjacent properties, the subject parcel could
accommodate a building height of approximately 20 feet. A building height of approximately 20
feet would be inconsistent with the long-range plan for the PUD (urban-themed area) that
controls the subject parcel.
The property owners to the north (those properties impacted by the shadowing of the proposed
building on the subject parcel) are supportive of the proposed 60-80-foot high building despite
the fact that their properties will be partially shadowed by the proposed building. Please see
attached letter from the hotel owner.
B. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said
land is located.
In order to build a structure in keeping with the spirit of the PUD, a mid-rise building ought to be
constructed. The proposed building is a mid-rise building and as a result, it will shadow a wall of
an adjacent building – a hotel. The wall that will be shadowed only has windows for common
hallways; there are no windows to individual hotel rooms.
C. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The property is currently zoned office and the overlying PUD contemplates a hotel, but the
proposed building is a 6-story apartment building. The requested variance is necessary for the
property owner’s ability to construct a building that is both consistent with the PUD, the
underlying, zoning, or the proposed use AND consistent with the urban-themed area.
D. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger
of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the variance will not impact the light or air supply of any outdoor recreation
area of the adjacent properties. The requested variance has no impact on the congestion of the
public streets, nor does it impact the fire danger, nor does it endanger the public safety.
E. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the
neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding
area or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
The requested variance will have no impact on the character and development of the
neighborhood, nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 36
surrounding area. The requested variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort,
or morals of the area.
F. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The requested variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
G. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
Given the size and shape of the parcel and the location of the buildings on adjacent properties,
granting the requested variance is the only way that a building that is consistent with the overall
vision of the PUD can be constructed on the subject parcel.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Letter from hotel owner
Exhibit B: Memo from Architect
Exhibit C: Shadow Study from Architect
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 37
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 38
Memorandum
TO: Sean Walther, City of St. Louis Park
Meg McMonigal, City of St. Louis Park
FROM: BKV Group, Inc.
PROJECT: West End Apartments COMM. NO.: 1807.01
DATE: July 28, 2010
RE: Shadow Studies
______________________________________________________________
Zoning Code: All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and
shade patterns on other buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential
buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not
cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a
period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60
days of the year.
The project complies with the zoning code from February 15th until October 15th.
There are 123 days when the project shades more than 50% of the adjacent
building façade for over 2 hours between 9am and 3pm.
West End Apartments Shadowing Details
June: From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover no more than 8% of the adjacent
building façade for 1 hour.
July (May): From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 8% of the adjacent building
façade for 2 hours.
August (April): From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 25% of the adjacent
building façade for 2 hours.
September (March): From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 40% of the adjacent
building façade for 1 hour. Shadows cover 30% of the adjacent building façade
for approximately 3 hours.
October (February): From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 70% of the adjacent
building façade for 1 hour. Shadows cover 60 - 68% of the adjacent building
façade for approximately 2 hours. Shadows cover 40 - 45% of the adjacent
building façade for approximately 4 hours.
November (January): From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 65% of the adjacent
building façade for 2 hours. Shadows cover 70 - 75% of the adjacent building
façade for approximately 5 hours.
December: From 9am until 3pm, shadows cover 60 - 75% of the adjacent
building façade for 2 hours. Shadows cover 75 - 80% of the adjacent building
façade for approximately 5 hours.
See attached shadow study diagrams for detailed information.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Page 39
Shadow StudyJune 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJune 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 40
Shadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyJuly (May) 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 41
Shadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyAugust (April) 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 42
Shadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudySeptember (March) 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 43
Shadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyOctober (February) 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 44
Shadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyNovember (January) 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 45
Shadow StudyDecember 21 - 9amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 10amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 11amWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 12pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 1pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 2pmWest End ApartmentsShadow StudyDecember 21 - 3pmWest End ApartmentsCity Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 46
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 47
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 48
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 49
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 50
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 51
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 52
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 53
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 54
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow VariancePage 55
Meeting Date: September 7, 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 September 7, 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 4,360 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.
Traffic Study and Circulation Analysis:
A traffic study for the proposed drive-through use was initially completed by SRF Consulting Group
on June 11, 2010. The study analyzed five intersections on Excelsior Blvd. and also site access and
circulation. The study was updated on August 27, 2010 to better analyze circulation and pedestrian
use of the site. The updated 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 September 7, 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; however, the following recommendations were included to
increase pedestrian safety:
o Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance of the West Access between the Miracle
Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance with either a bump-out near the
restaurant entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates
the parking area from the West Access.
o In lieu of, or in conjunction of the decreasing pedestrian crossing distance, emphasize
the pedestrian crossing of the West Access using a raised crosswalk/speed table
between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance.
o Provide an improved linkage to sidewalk along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard
by installing either a raised sidewalk or using bollards to physically separate
pedestrians from vehicles on the West Access roadway.
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 Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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 – 4,360 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 could 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 allowed in certain circumstances meeting the provisions
of 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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
(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.
To qualify for shared parking, the applicant must demonstrate that the uses under consideration
have differing peak demand times for off-street parking. For example, office uses typically
experience peak demand during the daytime hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM; for this reason, uses
with a peak demand in the evening, such as a movie theater or hotel, could potentially qualify for
shared parking. Similarly, a coffee shop with a morning peak demand for parking could potentially
share parking lot space with a movie rental store with an afternoon and evening peak.
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 consultant’s study concludes that future peak parking demand is between 32 and 44
vehicles – still exceeding the 16 off-street spaces that would be available on the DQ site if the drive-
through were constructed.
As noted, customers could possibly use spaces on the adjacent lots based on the draft easement
provided if shared parking were approved. 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 52 spaces. This deficit occurs despite a parking reduction of 10% for transit
service on Excelsior Boulevard. This generalized parking analysis of the Miracle Mile area, updated
on August 30th, 2010 using additional information provided by the applicant, is attached for review.
Please note that the generalized parking analysis was completed by City Staff for informational
purposes only and does not pertain specifically to the DQ application, as the application was for the
DQ parcel only.
Lacking information from the 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:
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
(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. Noise from vehicles using the drive-through, including but not limited to
exhaust or stereo systems, could exceed the decibel limits on a case-by-case basis.
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:
(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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
SRF Consulting reviewed the issue of pedestrian access in greater detail as part of the August 27th,
2010 revisions to the traffic and circulation study. The review included several suggestions for
methods to improve pedestrian safety within the site. If the proposed drive-through were approved,
these measures could be incorporated into the site plan by the applicant to improve the situation for
pedestrians 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.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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,
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
• 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
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
walkable town center. The construction of a drive-through in this location is not
complementary or supportive of the development of 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.
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).
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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
shared 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.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Draft Planning Commission Minutes – June 16, 2010
Location Map
SRF Traffic Study
Letter from City Attorney Tom Scott
Correspondence and other attachments from applicant
DQ Site Plan and related documents
City Staff - Miracle Mile Area Parking Analysis
Applicant – Miracle Mile Area Parking Analysis
Wenck Memo
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
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.”
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. 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;
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;
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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. There are currently
two trees and 33 shrubs on the site, and the Zoning Ordinance requirement is for 17
trees and 102 shrubs. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service would increase the intensity
of the non-conforming use on the site without addressing the landscaping non-
conformity, which is prohibited by the City Code (Section 36-404 (3)). Furthermore, it
is not reasonable to conclude that landscaping could be provided without further
reducing the existing off-street parking on the site.
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;
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;
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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.
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, outdoor storage and sales, and similar heavier commercial uses” in this
area (Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Plan, Adopted May 17, 1999).
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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 September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
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
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
code. He said the applicant may indicate there is common ownership between this parcel
and the parcel that the drive-through would be located on. The legal requirement was clear
and this wasn’t the kind of situation that could look to mitigating factors.
Commissioner Robertson asked if there was a request for a parking variance.
Mr. Fulton replied there was no application for a parking variance.
Commissioner Robertson stated there were glaring problems and he asked why the
application was considered complete.
Mr. Fulton replied there were a number of reasons why the application was considered
complete. The shared parking was an important issue. Staff addressed that issue with the
applicant and noted that was an issue that would bar a recommendation of approval. No
information was submitted related to the shared parking issue.
Mr. Scott indicated the applicant had chosen not to submit information. It was not required
information and they did not have a basis for deeming the application incomplete. The
applicant had chosen to go forward without including a request for consideration of a
reciprocal parking easement, which was their choice. They chose not to initiate a re-plat and
move the lot line ten feet. Their application was not incomplete in the sense that any
required information that they would require under the ordinance was not there. They
chose to ask Planning Commission and City Council to consider it based on what they had
submitted.
Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting Group, traffic consultant, stated the purpose of the traffic
study was to determine traffic impacts related to the proposed Dairy Queen drive through
operations, as well as review the site access and circulation related to the proposed drive
through and offer recommendation to mitigate any impacts if necessary. SRF reviewed the
existing traffic operations for the current Dairy Queen as well as the adjacent uses of the site
and adjacent roadway network. He summarized the study findings.
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
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
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 22
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
permit. They are a daytime operation. The drive-through operations would be from 10 AM
to 10 PM. The design was very simplistic and a modest adjustment to the site. They take
out some parking, but less parking is required because of the operation. Mr. Anderson
concluded by saying the applicant will meet the requirements of the code that permits in-
vehicle service through a conditional use permit.
Nick Spiredes, Spiredes Reiners Architects, reviewed the Grill and Chill layout from an aerial
photograph and discussed the drive aisle and parking.
Mr. Morris asked if the property owner agreed to the changes in the driveway easement.
Mr. Anderson stated he had a letter from InterCity Investments explaining the conversations
they were having about providing the private agreements for ingress, egress and parking.
The letter was given to the Chair for the record.
Jim Benshoof, Benshoof and Associates, traffic engineering consultant for applicant spoke
about three issues raised in the staff report: 1) internal circulation; 2) potential U-turns on
Excelsior Blvd; and, 3) parking.
Chair Person asked for copies of the materials from Mr. Benshoof. The Commission
recessed for 5 minutes to allow for copying of the document.
Commissioner Carper asked about the delivery trucks and the proximity of the drive aisle.
Mr. Benshoof agreed with Mr. Vaughn’s comments, according to the site plan, there is just
over 30 feet total between the building walls. There is a sidewalk, reducing it to about 25
feet. The drive-through operations vehicles would be using 10-12 feet, which would leave
approximately 13-15 feet, which he felt was sufficient for passage of any vehicle. It was
wider than a standard traffic lane that was twelve feet wide. It would not be large enough for
the angling of a truck. Passage would be OK.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Benshoof spoke about delivery trucks and the drive aisle.
Commissioner Carper asked how deliveries were made to the business.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 23
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Mr. Spiredes responded they were trying to minimize the impact and dimension from any
stacking to the neighborhood to the south and make it as compact as possible, while meeting
the requirements of the drive-through component of the code.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the CUP stayed with the property.
Mr. Fulton replied that was correct, the CUP goes with the land. It would be a drive-
through for a fast food restaurant, subject to conditions approved by the City Council.
Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, the attorney representing the applicant, stated he wished to
address the lot issue. They looked at the City Code, and asked if the access drive along the
building on the lot that was owned by the landlord was prohibited by City Code, and it was
not. They met with staff and the City Attorney and understood an alternative to that would
be to re-plat the entire center. They looked at that and talked to the landlord. That would
involve everybody who has a legal interest in the property. They put this in the context of
trying to cut a window in the building to provide drive-through service. They were trying to
improve the business viability of this property by adding a drive-through. They needed to
balance the idea of platting a property that had never been platted before, all of the easement
and legal interest issues and they took the path of least resistance, which was to provide an
access drive.
Mr. Griffith said he and the City Attorney had a differing opinion. He cited the following
from City Code: “no land use is permitted or permissible on a parcel unless it can be located
thereon in full compliance with all of the standards and regulations of this chapter.” He said
if that one line in the City Code prohibited access drives as they were proposing, then
literally hundreds of properties that shared access would be prohibited and he didn’t believe
they could read it that narrowly. If ultimately they can solve the other issues regarding
pedestrian safety and traffic and parking, which he believed they could, then he thought they
could also address the easement issue. They had a landlord that was willing to cooperate.
He said the next point regarded stacking and he believed that was met. They had heard from
Mr. Benshoof and Mr. Vaughn and traffic operations were acceptable. They firmly believed
that putting in a drive-through window was an opportunity to provide better definition for
the safety of customers and for pedestrians and others using the Miracle Mile Center.
Striping will be provided to slow vehicles down and show pedestrians where they cross. U-
turns can be safely accommodated at Quentin Avenue. He said putting a drive-through
window in a Dairy Queen is not a redevelopment. The objective to provide for pedestrian
safety and minimize conflicts was a good one. He believed they demonstrated that this
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 24
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Commissioner Morris asked why the applicant didn’t respond to the City in writing instead
of giving an oral presentation at the last moment.
Mr. Griffith replied they responded in writing to the City Attorney describing their position.
He provided a written response. It was their opportunity at the public hearing to make it
record. They will continue to communicate throughout the process.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Rose Doherty, 4968 W. 40th, indicated traffic was a problem on Excelsior Blvd. and the
surrounding streets. During peak hours, the Miracle Mile parking lot and Excelsior Blvd. is
at a stand still. Cars exiting Dairy Queen would have a difficult time getting into the left
turn lane on Quentin. People will take a right on Quentin because of this. People parking
in the Miracle Mile parking lot would have a difficult time crossing to the Dairy Queen
entrance. Ms. Doherty said she would like the Commission to consider whether a drive
through promotes a walkable community. Streets behind Miracle Mile would be greatly
affected. There are no sidewalks on 40th and it is used by pedestrians. Ms. Doherty also
wanted the Commission to consider if they granted the CUP, it would set a precedent for
Excelsior Blvd. She didn’t want to hear car radios and people ordering through a drive
through at her home or people throwing garbage over her fence. Groups already gather in
the parking lot behind her house and she didn’t want to encourage more of the same. She
didn’t understand why it was the neighborhood’s responsibility to see that Dairy Queen was
profitable. She concluded by saying that in 2003 Dairy Queen knew the neighborhood was
not in favor of a drive-through when Wendy’s went through the process. A lot of the same
issues with the Wendy’s application are still the same today. Traffic and parking is worse.
Ms. Doherty urged the Commission to vote against the CUP request.
Bill Gleason, 2825 Kentucky, said he is part of a family business in St. Louis Park and is also
a resident. He stated they have a fundraising partnership with Little League. He is part of a
family business in St. Louis Park and is also a resident. One of the things they needed to
look at was if this was a viable business, was good for the community and did it provide jobs.
He said he coaches baseball and hockey and has taken kids to the Dairy Queen after school
events. It is a good gathering place. He stated he had never seen a bad crowd at Diary
Queen. They were giving to the community and were helping out.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 25
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Rob Page, 3750 Huntington, said he didn’t see issues with the U-turns discussed. Regarding
walkability, he said cars would only be going 3 m.p.h. A speed bump could be installed to
alleviate neighborhood concern. He said in terms of noise, the speakers face east and it was
almost 200 feet from houses, so he didn’t think people would hear noise from their yards
very much. Mr. Page said regarding precedence, there weren’t too many lots that would
have a 100 ft. setback, which was required for a drive-through. He said it was a wonderful
building and people should be careful what they wish for because if Dairy Queen leaves they
don’t know what would come in. It could be better, but it could be something much worse
for the neighborhood.
Chair Person acknowledged all emails, letters and phone calls that had been received and
asked that they be included in the record.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Chair Kramer asked how this was different from Wendy’s request which was turned down
and why this could be approved.
Mr. Fulton replied that every application is distinct. In this case, although it is the same site,
the Wendy’s proposal was to remove what had previously been the Sage Hen Restaurant
building, put in a new building and drive-through. Because that would have been a complete
redevelopment of the site, it would have had to come into complete compliance with the
zoning ordinance. That was denied by City Council. Dairy Queen renovated the existing
restaurant building, so there were still some of the non-conformities. He said it is a very
distinct proposal from the Wendy’s proposal, particularly related to the lot line issue.
Commissioner Morris stated the Commission has a long standing policy to receive staff
reports the Friday before the meeting. He said when an applicant comes to a meeting and
presents graphs, statistics, and expert testimony, it was extremely difficult to follow, to take
notes, to read, and photocopy documents that had just been handed to them. Normally
under those circumstances the request would just be held over and tabled to the next
meeting in order to have time to consider what had just been presented. He said normally
he would recommend tabling, but the City Attorney had laid out specific conditions that
were not being met. They were talking about violations to the zoning code and non-
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He didn’t see them specifically address the
violation other than that they disagreed with 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
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 26
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
was a shared use, the same with the parking. He said he wanted to see the agreement. He
believed it was premature. He was not in opposition to the overall concept. There were
some safety issues, but this was an urban setting with traffic and pedestrians. He said he did
not think they could legally approve this. There were too many unmet criteria and he felt
there was no reason to continue.
Commissioner Carper believed there were pros and cons, however he would vote no because
of the ordinance that says no land use is permitted on another parcel. The second reason was
because of the off-street parking requirement. He said the applicant had plenty of time to
postpone this while they got the shared requirement.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she supported the City Attorney and staff in their
observations and supported the report as written and would vote for denial. She believed
there were a lot more traffic issues than were being discussed. She said anyone who lives,
works and shops in this area knew the real traffic issues in the area.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
EXCELSI
O
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 27
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
Updated September 1, 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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 28
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 ALLA
C
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 MONTEREYOWAAV.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.LAKE
BRUNSWICKEDGE33 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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 29
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 3 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 30
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 MONTEREYOWAAV.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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 31
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 5 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 32
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 33
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 7 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 34
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 8 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Table 3
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use P.M. Peak
In Out Total
Existing Dairy Queen Restaurant a
(without Drive-Thru) 23 25 48
Additional Trips Generated by the
Proposed Drive-Thru Window b 22 22 44
Total Trips Generated by Existing Dairy
Queen with the Proposed Drive-Thru 45 47 92
Notes: a Based on existing counts.
b Based on field observations of similar-sized Dairy Queen restaurants in the Twin Cities, and drive-thru
transaction data provided by Dairy Queen.
Based on data provided by Dairy Queen, it is anticipated that the addition of the proposed drive-
thru will increase total transactions at the existing restaurant by approximately 33 percent. A
review of the ITE Trip Generation Manual revealed that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru
typically generates approximately 30 percent more traffic than a fast-food restaurant without a
drive-thru. As shown in Table 3, the existing Dairy Queen generates 48 trips during the p.m.
peak hour. The addition of the proposed drive-thru will add 22 vehicles (or 44 trips, 22 inbound
and 22 outbound) during the p.m. peak hour. This represents almost a 90 percent increase in the
total trips generated by the existing restaurant without a drive-thru during the p.m. peak hour.
This is considered to be a conservative estimate when compared to the 33 percent increase
anticipated by Dairy Queen, and the estimated 30 percent increase in trips based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual.
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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 35
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 ALLA
C
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.WOOL
I
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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 36
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 MONTEREYOWAAV.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 September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 37
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 11 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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.
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. 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.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 38
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 12 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Nevertheless, as a result of the proposed drive-thru, an increase in activity along the West Access
roadway, near the existing entrance to the restaurant is expected. The West Access roadway
borders the east end of the main Miracle Mile shopping center parking lot and leads to the
proposed drive-thru roadway and additional parking located south of the existing restaurant. In
addition to providing access to the proposed Dairy Queen drive-thru and additional restaurant
parking, the West Access roadway is often used by vehicles circulating within the main Miracle
Mile parking area east of Dairy Queen. Complicating the vehicular activity along the West
Access roadway is the location of the restaurant building’s entrance (approximately midway
between Excelsior Boulevard and the proposed drive-thru).
A review of the site plan revealed that the proposed drive-thru circulation roadway will
accommodate approximately seven vehicles to stack before spilling out into the West Access
roadway. 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. However, if the queue does ever extend beyond the storage
provided, the drive-thru vehicles would further complicate vehicular and pedestrian travel on the
West Access roadway. In this case, drive-thru customers will also be expected to provide a gap
for vehicles from the south parking lot to travel northbound to exit using the right-in/right-out
west access. In addition, motorists waiting in the drive-thru queue would also need to yield to
pedestrians crossing the entrance to the drive-thru circulation roadway from the south parking
lot. With the increased activity occurring in such a short distance, it would be beneficial to
relocate the proposed drive-thru roadway further to the south, away from the main parking lot
(where most of the circulation and parking operations occur). This would reduce the likelihood
of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the West Access roadway and interfering with the vehicles
and pedestrians near the restaurant entrance.
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
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 39
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 13 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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.
Pedestrian Circulation
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 and may even
increase. As shown in the proposed site plan, customers parking in the Miracle Mile main lot to
the west have a marked crosswalk guiding them across the West Access roadway to the
restaurant entrance. While vehicular speeds on site are expected to be low and pedestrians
should not experience difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant, there will be an increase in
the number of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts as a result of the proposed drive-thru.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 40
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 14 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
In order to provide safer pedestrian travel to/from the Dairy Queen restaurant, the following
improvements should be considered:
• Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance: Decreasing the pedestrian crossing distance
of the West Access between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance
will improve the overall safety. This can be accomplished with either a bump-out near
the restaurant entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates
the parking area from the West Access roadway.
• Emphasize the pedestrian crossing: In lieu of, or in conjunction with decreasing the
pedestrian crossing distance, the crossing of the West Access roadway could be
emphasized using a raised crosswalk/speed table between the Miracle Mile parking area
and the restaurant entrance. Additional study is needed to see how a proposed raised
crosswalk/speed table might impact on-site drainage patterns.
• Provide pedestrian linkage to sidewalk along south side of Excelsior Boulevard:
Field observations revealed that pedestrians that access the site via the sidewalk along the
south side of Excelsior Boulevard do not have a defined path or sidewalk to the entrance
of the Dairy Queen restaurant. As a result, pedestrians share the pavement of the West
Access roadway with vehicles that enter/exit the site. A pedestrian linkage between the
sidewalk and the restaurant entrance should be created to help separate pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. This linkage could be created by either installing a raised sidewalk or a
more defined pedestrian walkway with bollards that physically separates pedestrians from
vehicles on the West Access roadway.
Figure 6 illustrates these on-site pedestrian circulation improvement options.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 41
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 42
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 16 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
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. Nevertheless, as a result of the proposed drive-thru, an increase in activity
along the West Access roadway, near the existing entrance to the restaurant is expected.
With the increased activity occurring in such a short distance, it would be beneficial to
relocate the proposed drive-thru roadway further to the south, away from the main parking
lot (where most of the circulation and parking operations occur). This would reduce the
likelihood of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the West Access roadway and interfering
with the vehicles and pedestrians near the restaurant entrance.
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.
• Based on a review of on-site pedestrian circulation, the following recommendations are
offered to minimize the impacts of the increased number of on-site pedestrian/vehicular
conflicts as a result of the proposed drive-thru:
o Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance of the West Access between the Miracle Mile
parking area and the restaurant entrance with either a bump-out near the restaurant
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 43
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 17 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates the parking
area from the West Access.
o In lieu of, or in conjunction of the decreasing of the pedestrian crossing distance,
emphasize the pedestrian crossing of the West Access using a raised crosswalk/speed
table between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance. (Additional
study is needed to see how a proposed raised crosswalk/speed table might impact onsite
drainage patterns.)
o Provide an improved pedestrian linkage to sidewalk along south side of Excelsior
Boulevard by installing either a raised sidewalk or bollards to physically separate
pedestrians from vehicles on the West Access roadway.
• 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\Revised FINAL DQ TS 9-01-10.docx
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 44
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 45
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 46
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 47
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 48
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 49
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 50
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 51
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 52
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 53
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 54
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 55
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 56
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 57
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 58
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 59
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 60
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 61
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 62
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 63
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 64
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 65
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 66
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 67
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 68
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 69
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 6,168 square feet 1 space per 60 square feet 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 45 spaces Parking lot – Pannekoeken / Baja 4961 Excelsior Boulevard NA NA NA NA 58 spaces subtotal 1 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 103 spaces +10 spaces Dairy Queen 5001 Excelsior Boulevard 4,360 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 Office (19,237 SF) 1 space per 250 Retail (84,941 SF) 1 space per 250 Restaurant (1,585 SF) 1 per 60 Warehouse (24,000 SF) 1 per 1,500 77 spaces 340 spaces 26 spaces 16 spaces 7 spaces 34 spaces 2 spaces 1 space 70 spaces 306 spaces 24 spaces 15 spaces 391 spaces subtotal 3 459 spaces 44 spaces 415 spaces 391 spaces -24 spaces Pannekoeken / Baja subtotal 1 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 103 spaces Dairy Queen subtotal 2 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces Miracle Mile subtotal 3 459 spaces 44 spaces 415 spaces 391 spaces TOTAL 635 spaces 61 spaces 574 spaces 522 spaces -52 spaces City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 70
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 71
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 72
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 73
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 74
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 75
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 76
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 77
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 78
Memorandum
1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359
Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242
To: Dave Anderson, Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate Group
From: Jim Benshoof
Date: September 2, 2010
Subject: Comments Regarding Draft Updated Memo from SRF Consulting Group Dated August 27,
2010, Pertaining to Grill & Chill Restaurant in St. Louis Park
Wenck File #1641-04
On Monday, August 30, we received a draft memo produced by the SRF firm dated August 27, 2010,
which updates their memo dated June 11, 2010, regarding their traffic study for the proposed drive-
through addition at the Grill & Chill Restaurant on Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. At your request,
this memo is to provide our comments regarding the draft updated memo from the SRF firm.
First, I want to emphasize that although the updated memo includes additional text, the SRF firm has not
changed its principal conclusions. Four key examples of results that remain the same are:
• Figure 5, “Year 2011 Build Conditions” in both reports presents the same projected traffic
volumes. The updated memo is the same as the June 11 memo in terms of predicting that the
drive-through will add 22 additional trips entering the site and 22 additional trips exiting the site
during the typical weekday p.m. peak hour.
• The last sentence in both reports before Table 4 (page 8 in the June 11 memo and page 11 in the
August 27 memo) states: “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 2011 build
conditions, with existing geometrics and traffic controls.”
• In both reports, the last sentence in the first paragraph under Site Access and Circulation on page
11 of both reports states: “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.”
• The last sentence on page 11 of the June report states: “With lower speeds on site, pedestrians
should not experience any difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant.” As presented in the last
sentence on page 13 in the August report, this statement in the June report was modified only
slightly: “While vehicular speeds on site are expected to be low and pedestrians should not
experience difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant, there will be an increase in the number
of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts as a result of the proposed drive-thru.”
Page 8 of the draft memo dated August 27, 2010, includes additional numbers in Table 3 and an
additional paragraph following that table. Notwithstanding all the words in that paragraph, it is important
to emphasize that SRF has not changed their projection that the drive-through will add 22 entering trips
and 22 exiting trips during the p.m. peak hour.
The SRF draft updated memo includes additional statements about traffic and pedestrian operations in the
drive aisle on the west side of the Grill & Chill Restaurant. Comparing Figures 2 and 5 in both reports,
SRF predicts that the total p.m. peak hour volume on this drive aisle will increase by a total of 21
vehicles, about one vehicle every three minutes. Given that modest increase, we concur with SRF’s
conclusion that “pedestrians should not experience difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant.”
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 79
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Adoption of the 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Budgets, and 2011
Preliminary City and HRA Property Tax Levies.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation
Budgets, 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Public Hearing Date for the 2011
Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to set the 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy at $23,562,306, which is
an increase of $1,096,093, or approximately 4.88% over 2010?
Does the City Council desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of taxable market value allowable
for HRA purposes to assist in paying for infrastructure needs in redeveloping areas?
Does the City Council wish to hold the Truth in Taxation public hearing on December 6 and adopt
the 2011 Budget, 2011 Final Property Tax Levy and the 2011 Final HRA Levy on December 20?
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2010, staff met with Council to discuss the 2011 budget process. Council agreed that
staff should follow recommendations from the “2010/2011 Budget Snapshot” presented at the
meeting when preparing the 2011 budget. Assumptions in the “2010/2011 Budget Snapshot”
included a pattern similar to 2010 - hold expenditures flat if at all possible, with the possibility for
some modest growth based on essential business needs, a modest levy increase, funding for a wage
and benefit contribution increase, a franchise fee increase, a modest increase in other fees to fit with
business costs, possible utility rate increases, and continued long range financial planning.
Based on the assumptions just outlined, at the June 14, 2010 meeting, the City Council was
informed of an estimated budget gap of $411,857 within the General Fund and Park and Recreation
Fund combined budgets. From the direction provided by the Council at that meeting, department
directors completed and submitted their budgets by July 7th. Upon completion of the preliminary
budgets submitted by department directors the gap decreased to $58,800. This budget gap decrease
was achieved through a combination of reductions in department or cost center budgets and revenue
adjustments. Upon subsequent meetings with each department, further budget refinements were
made resulting in the submittal of a balanced 2011 Preliminary Budget proposal for the City
Council to consider.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
For 2011, the combined preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund budget is
$29,722,246 as compared to $29,255,519 in 2010 or approximately a 1.6% increase.
By law, the City Council must approve a 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy. In addition, past
practice has been to adopt a 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Budget by
September 15, 2010. The property tax levy portion must then be sent to Hennepin County for
certification by September 15, 2010. Hennepin County will mail out parcel specific notices to
taxpayers in mid-November. Final action on the 2011 Budget and 2011 Final Property Tax Levy
will not occur until December.
In addition to the general property taxes and the HRA levy, the City is also required to levy for debt
service to repay the 2003 General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds, and 2005 G.O. Bonds.
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
At the August 9, 2010 meeting, City Council provided staff with direction to prepare subsequent
Council actions based on a 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,562,306 which is an increase
of $1,096,913, or a 4.88% increase from the 2010 Final Property Tax Levy. At that time it was felt
this was the maximum the City Council was able to levy under state imposed levy limits. After the
August 9, 2010 meeting, the State of Minnesota provided the City of St. Louis Park with the “2011
Final Overall Levy Limitation Notice”. As a result, the maximum levy amount has increased by
$54,646 to $23,616,952. This information would change the maximum allowed preliminary levy
increase from approximately 4.88% to 5.13%. The City Council has the option to levy at this
higher amount, but based on Council direction from August 9th, staff prepared the attached
resolutions based on the 4.88% levy increase. This levy is utilized to support the operations of the
General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, Park Improvement Fund, Capital Replacement Fund,
and Pavement Management Fund. Special levies, which are allowed in addition to the general levy,
are permitted for debt service, public safety personnel services, and the Market Value Homestead
Credit un-allotment for 2010 and 2011. As noted in a chart that follows, only 2.82% of the 4.88%
levy increase is being used for operational purposes. The remaining amount is proposed to be
allocated for capital needs.
The breakdown of the 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy is shown in the chart below.
2010 Final 2011 Levy Limit 2011 Proposed
NET LEVY LIMIT: $14,472,624 $14,756,939 $14,756,939
+ Bonded Indebtedness 1,358,700 997,000 997,000
+ Personnel Services for Police 6,260,752 6,527,935 6,527,935
+ MVHC Un-allotment 2010 373,317 667,539 667,539
+ MVHC Un-allotment 2011 n/a 667,539 612,893
TOTAL LEVY WITH SPECIAL LEVIES $22,465,393 $23,616,952 $23,562,306
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
The breakdown of the proposed levy by fund is shown in the table below:
2010 2011 Dollar Incease %age Increase
Levy Preliminary 2011 2010
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $19,543,393 $20,094,172 $550,779 2.82%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 1,246,134 907,834 268.35%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 415,000 - 0.00%
Debt Service 1,358,700 997,000 (361,700) -26.62%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,465,393 $23,562,306 $1,096,913 4.88%
CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATION
By actively pursuing redevelopment within the City through Tax Increment Financing, the City
Council has been able to further enhance the City’s sound financial position while still being
conscious of the tax burden on the taxpayers. One of the many advantages of active redevelopment
by using Tax Increment Financing is the recent decertification of the Excelsior Blvd. and Oak Park
Village Tax Increment Financing Districts. The decertification of these districts back onto the tax
roll provides an increase to the City’s overall net tax capacity in a time when many properties are
experiencing a decline in value. This results in the tax burden being spread over a larger base thereby
allowing many properties to experience an estimated decrease in the proposed City share of property
taxes for the 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy. Therefore, this should result in most residential
properties seeing an estimated proposed City share of property taxes decreasing from approximately
0.8% to 4.6% when looking a certain valuations ranging from $150,000 to $700,000. The attached
worksheet illustrates the tax impacts of homes with varying values in the City. This does not mean
that a property which is valued at a particular amount on the worksheet will see that exact change in
the City share, as there are many factors involved, but is for illustrative purposes.
TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING
Legislative requirements have changed in regard to Truth in Taxation public hearings that usually
occur in December. The requirement to publish and hold a special public hearing separate from
adopting the final tax levy was repealed in 2009. For that reason, the City Council could hold the
public hearing and adopt the tax levy on the same night. Past practice has been to hold the public
hearing and then at the subsequent meeting adopt the final budget in an effort for thoughtful
consideration of any comments at the public hearing and transparency. If the City Council chooses
to continue this practice, then the dates would be the regular City Council meetings of December 6,
2010 for the Truth in Taxation public hearing and December 20, 2010 for the 2011 Budget, 2011
Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, 2011 Utility Rates, 2011 Fee Schedule, and the
2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the Long Range Financial Management Plan
will be provided as a report, but will not be formally adopted.
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
The proposed budget timeline for the remaining part of 2010 is as follows:
Budget Timeline:
September 7 Council establishes 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
October 25 Council to review 2011 Enterprise, 2011 Special Rev. Funds, 2011-
2015 Capital Improvement Plan and Long Range Financial
Management Plan. (study session)
November 8 and/or 22 Final 2011 Budget discussion prior to Truth in Taxation public hearing
(if necessary - study session)
December 6 Regular City Council Meeting – Truth in Taxation Public Hearing for
2011 Budget and 2011 Tax Levies for City and HRA
December 13 If necessary – continuation of Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and
2011 Budget discussion
December 20 Council adoption of 2011 Budget, 2011 Final Property Tax Levies for
City and HRA, 2011 Utility Rates, 2011 Fee Schedule, and the 2011 –
2015 Capital Improvement Plan. The Long Range Financial
Management Plan will be provided as a report, but will not be formally
adopted.
HRA LEVY
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council has elected to use the levy
proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the
HRA levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analysis for future
improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment
purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future particularly for
transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana and possibly the Highway 100
reconstruction, staff recommends that the HRA levy continue to be set at the maximum allowed by
law for the 2011 budget year.
The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. The EDA is scheduled to do
so on September 7, 2010 as well. As outlined in the resolution, the HRA levy cannot exceed
0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City. Staff has calculated the maximum Preliminary
HRA Levy for 2011 to be $1,028,888. This is a $14,453 decrease, or approximately 1.39% less
from the 2010 HRA Levy of $1,043,341.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to review all the budgeted numbers, present the Enterprise and Special Revenue
Funds at a work session, prepare 2011 Utility Rates for the City Council to consider, review the
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Program, and update the Long Range Financial Management
Plan based on Council direction during the upcoming months. The City Council has the option of
reducing the 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levies for the City and HRA after the initial
certification; however it cannot be increased.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed budgets and tax levies will support necessary city services to be provided during 2011.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision, including strategic directions, were used in preparing the budget documents.
Attachments: Resolution Approving 2011 Preliminary Budgets, Tax Levy & Hearing Date
Resolution Authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2011
General Fund and Park & Recreation Summary Revenue
General Fund and Park & Recreation Summary of Expenditures
Property Tax Implications Worksheet
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2011 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND AND PARK AND
RECREATION BUDGETS, 2011 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY, AND
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET AND
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require approval of a preliminary property tax levy and a
preliminary budget on or before September 15th of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, that the Preliminary 2011 Budget shall be as follows:
2011
Preliminary
General and Park and Recreation Fund Revenues:
Property Taxes
$20,094,172
Market Value Homestead Credit Loss (667,539)
Other General Revenues 8,163,711
Other Park & Recreation Revenues 2,131,902
Total General and Park & Recreation Fund Revenues $29,722,246
Expenditures:
Total General Government $ 6,641,622
Total Public Safety 12,542,148
Total Public Works 4,226,014
Total Non-Departmental 180,000
Total Park & Recreation $6,132,462
Total General and Park and Recreation Fund Expenditures $29,722,246
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing will be held on
December 6, 2010; and
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for collection in 2011
upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Levy
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172
Park Improvement Fund 810,000
Capital Replacement Fund 1,246,134
Pavement Management Fund 415,000
Debt Service 997,000
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $23,562,306
And
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit this information to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and to the
Minnesota Department of Revenue in the format they request as required by law.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRELIMINARY HRA LEVY FOR 2011
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market
value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City in the amount of $1,028,888; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2011,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2009 2010 2011
Actual Adopted Requested $ change % change
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,162,792$ 14,889,605$ 15,426,072$ 536,467 3.6%
Licenses and Permits 2,779,167 2,294,768 2,345,910 51,142 2.2%
Intergovernmental 1,570,309 1,598,787 1,481,183 (117,605) -7.4%
Charges for Services 1,034,854 1,138,018 1,152,643 14,625 1.3%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 332,694 311,750 328,200 16,450 5.3%
Investment Earnings 260,263 200,000 200,000 - 0.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 170,876 101,600 104,900 3,300 3.2%
Transfers In 2,685,300 2,583,825 2,550,876 (32,949) -1.3%
Use of Fund Balance - 51,000 - (51,000) -100.0%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,996,255$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,783$ 420,430 1.8%
Appropriations 22,477,873$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,784$ 420,431 1.8%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 1,518,382$ -$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,073,118$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ (14,311) -0.4%
Licenses and Permits 6,865 6,275 6,600 325 5.2%
Intergovernmental 67,622 71,219 77,652 6,433 9.0%
Charges for Services 1,042,612 1,073,900 1,095,250 21,350 2.0%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - - 0.0%
Investment Earnings 760 - - - 0.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 984,559 919,900 952,400 32,500 3.5%
Transfers In 33,274 - - - 0.0%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,208,810$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.8%
Appropriations 5,835,524$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,462$ 46,296 0.8%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 373,286$ (0)$ 0$
Grand Totals:30,205,065$ 29,255,519$ 29,722,246$
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPEND. G.F. AND P&R.:(0)$
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption Page 9
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2009 2010 2011
and Activity Actual Adopted Requested $ Change % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,512,627$ 1,569,422$ 1,542,570$ (26,853) -1.7%
Communications & Marketing 272,270 281,905 294,470 12,565 4.5%
Community Outreach 80,634 86,255 88,515 2,260 2.6%
Information Resources 1,414,794 1,400,666 1,394,226 (6,440) -0.5%
Finance 1,121,237 1,078,930 1,113,106 34,176 3.2%
Community Development 1,050,332 1,051,150 1,094,186 43,036 4.1%
Facilities Maintenance 1,020,128 1,081,742 1,114,550 32,808 3.0%
Total General Government 6,472,022 6,550,070 6,641,622 91,552 1.4%
Public Safety:
Police 6,954,076 7,306,402 7,499,575 193,173 2.6%
Fire Protection 3,031,709 3,122,173 3,179,277 57,104 1.8%
Inspectional Services 1,918,353 1,816,227 1,863,296 47,069 2.6%
Total Public Safety 11,904,138 12,244,802 12,542,148 297,346 2.4%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 913,576 854,900 829,698 (25,203) -2.9%
Engineering 797,018 829,800 846,031 16,231 2.0%
Operations 2,383,457 2,509,100 2,550,285 41,185 1.6%
Total Public Works 4,094,051 4,193,800 4,226,014 32,214 0.8%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,188,616 1,245,408 1,239,230 (6,178) -0.5%
Recreation Center 1,341,344 1,436,858 1,442,447 5,589 0.4%
Park Maintenance 1,389,939 1,396,715 1,435,374 38,659 2.8%
Westwood 481,650 493,450 502,366 8,916 1.8%
Environment 414,311 351,543 371,325 19,782 5.6%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,019,664 1,162,192 1,141,721 (20,471) -1.8%
Total Park & Recreation 5,835,524 6,086,166 6,132,462 46,296 0.8%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 7,662 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.4%
Total Non-Departmental 7,662 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.4%
Total General & Park Funds 28,313,397$ 29,255,519$ 29,722,246$ 466,727 1.6%
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy Adoption Page 10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKRESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXESASSUMES STRATIFIED MARKET VALUE CHANGES4.88% LEVY INCREASEFOR THE 2011 PRELIMINARY LEVY AMOUNTProperty Value Tax Capacity 37.116 38.411 Market Value Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent2010 2011 2010 2011 Tax Capacity Rate Homestead Credit 2010 2011 Increase Increase2010 2011150,000 140,0001,500 1,400 556.74 537.75 (88.11) (94.64) 468.63 443.11-25.52 -4.6%200,000 190,0002,000 1,900 742.32 729.81 (71.41) (77.36) 670.91 652.45-18.46 -2.5%250,000 240,0002,500 2,400 927.90 921.86 (54.71) (60.07) 873.19 861.79-11.40 -1.2%300,000 290,0003,000 2,900 1,113.48 1,113.92 (38.01) (42.79) 1,075.47 1,071.13-4.34 -0.4%350,000 340,0003,500 3,400 1,299.06 1,305.97 (21.30) (25.50) 1,277.76 1,280.472.71 0.2%400,000 385,0004,000 3,850 1,484.64 1,478.82 (4.60) (9.95) 1,480.04 1,468.88-11.16 -0.8%500,000 480,0005,000 4,800 1,855.80 1,843.73 - - 1,855.80 1,843.73-12.07 -0.7%600,000 575,0006,250 5,938 2,319.75 2,280.65 - - 2,319.75 2,280.65-39.10 -1.7%700,000 670,0007,500 7,125 2,783.70 2,736.78 - - 2,783.70 2,736.78-46.92 -1.7%Assumptions:2010 and 2011 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information. Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: 2011 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy AdoptionPage 11
Meeting Date: September 7, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
– Project No. 2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale
Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the agreement as drafted?
BACKGROUND:
Project Information
The Council recently discussed this proposed Supplemental Agreement on July 12, July 26, and
August 23. The report prepared for the July 12, 2010 Study Session essentially explained the
background that provides the basis for the Agreement. In summary, the City has negotiated an
agreement that provides for a revised contract substantial completion date and additional
compensation to Ames Construction to account for utility delays and revising of the construction
sequencing and work pace to substantially complete the project by November 19, 2010. This
Agreement is also recommended for approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT), which is serving as the City’s construction manager (agent) during the course of
construction. The project intent has always been to complete a quality project in a timely and cost
effective manner, while minimizing overall costs and inconveniences to the general public as much as
reasonably possible. This Agreement best accomplishes that intent.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Supplemental Agreement provides a structure that provides a base level of
compensation to settle contract issues with regards to the utility delay claims, and an additional
incentive to complete the project substantially (open to traffic) by November 19, 2010.
The contractor is currently working under a condensed time-frame and pace that will allow the
interchange to be open to traffic by that date. However, the installation of the final bridge decking
late into the fall (along with possible colder and/or wet weather) could become unpredictable,
especially when pouring concrete becomes much more restrictive. As with any construction project
of this nature there may still be some relative unknowns with regards to risk and costs that cannot be
predicted or quantified reliably at this time. As a result, a portion of the proposed compensation to
the contractor is also based on incentives to complete the project before the winter season. The
Agreement therefore provides for base compensation in the amount of $200,000 and incentive pay
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Contract 119-09 – Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue
in the amount of $200,000 if the intersection is substantially complete (open to traffic) by
November 19, 2010.
It should be noted that incentive compensation is very common for highway projects of this nature,
and Mn/DOT again is very supportive of this proposed Agreement. As the City’s construction
agent, Mn/DOT will also be signing and administering the Agreement on behalf of the City. The
City’s Cooperative Agreement with Mn/DOT will also need to be revised to reflect the funding
obligations of Mn/DOT and the City as outlined below.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The total increase in the contract amount (with incentives) amounts to less than 3.5% of the total
contract amount and will be covered primarily by STP (federal) funds. Based on the bid received
last year and remaining STP funds, $658,750 (80% of which are federal dollars and 20% City) are
available to fund eligible project contingencies, such as this, should the need arise. In addition,
Mn/DOT has offered to contribute $20,000 toward this Supplemental Agreement. As a result, the
funding breakdown for the Supplemental Agreement is as follows (assuming Ames construction
achieves the substantial completion date and earns the incentive portion):
Federal (STP) funding (80%) $320,000
Local (City of St. Louis Park) $60,000
Mn/Dot $20,000
Total $400,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Supplemental Agreement 2
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Contract 119-09 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue Page 3
City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Contract 119-09 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue Page 4