HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/11/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 16, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Councilmembers Finkelstein and Sanger Absent
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2009
3b. Special City Council Minutes of October 26, 2009
3c. Closed Executive Session Minutes of October 26, 2009
3d. Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2009
3e. City Council Minutes of November 2, 2009
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 - 2010 Liquor License Fees
Recommended Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting 2010 liquor
license fees for the license term March 1, 2010 through March 1, 2011 pursuant to M.S.A.
Ch. 340A and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
Meeting of November 16, 2009
City Council Agenda
6b. Public Hearing and Resolution Approving and Authorizing issuance of Park Nicollet
Private Activity Revenue Refunding Bonds
Recommended Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of its Health
Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds for the benefit of Park Nicollet Health Services,
Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Park Nicollet Institute, Park Nicollet Clinic, PNMC
Holdings, and Park Nicollet Health Care Products, payable solely from revenues pledged
pursuant to the indenture; approving the form of and authorizing the execution and
delivery of the Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds and related documents;
and providing for the security, rights, and remedies with respect o the health care facilities
revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651,
as amended.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Wooddale Pointe – Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 08-120 adopted on
September 15, 2008 approving a 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 3601 Wooddale Avenue South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 08-119 adopted on
September 15, 2008 giving Approval for Final Plat of Wooddale Pointe with Easement
Variances.
8b. Galaxy Drive-In – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000
to the year 2020 for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to
462.364 to amend the map for 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S. and 3712 Quebec Ave. S. from
Low Density Residential to Commercial, and approve summary for publication.
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance rezoning property at 3715 Rhode Island
Ave. S. and 3712 Quebec Ave. S. from R-2 Single Family Residential to C-1
Neighborhood Commercial, and set second reading for December 7, 2009.
Meeting of November 16, 2009
City Council Agenda
8c. Denial of On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License with Sunday Sales – El GordoUno, Inc.
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting Findings of Fact and Decision denying the
application for an on-sale liquor license by El GordoUno, Inc. dba El Gordo Mexican
Restaurant located at 8140 Highway 7.
9. Communication
Meeting of November 16, 2009
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 6216 Cambridge Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $15,601.51 for the 2009 City
Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company accepting work on contract sealcoating,
Project No. 2009-0001, City Contract No. 82-09
4c. Approve Change Order No. 3 to Contract 72-08 - Street Project --- Park Place Boulevard ---
Project No. 2007-1101
4d. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of $35,566.70 for paving of a
trail, parking lots and courts at Fern Hill Park, City Project No. 2008-0070, Contract No.
119-08
4e. Adopt Resolution approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT) Worker’s Compensation Program for the insurance renewal
period December 1, 2009 --- November 30, 2010
4f. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4g. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes September 2, 2009
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 26, 2009
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmembers absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Finance
Manager (Mr. Swanson), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Communications Coordinator
(Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Others present: Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Mr. Hartman and Mr. Keeler),
LocalLoop (Mr. Torarp and Mr. Johnson), and Fiber Consultant (Mr. Pavek).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 2 and November 9, 2009
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agendas for November 2 and November 9,
2009. He noted that City Attorney Scott will present a proposed electronic signs ordinance at the
Special Study Session on November 2nd. He added that at the joint meeting with the School Board
the idea of partnering to install turf at the high school football field had been discussed. Mr.
Harmening asked if this was something staff should put on a future study session for discussion.
It was the consensus of the City Council that a discussion regarding artificial turf should be brought
to the Council when time permits.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he did not feel the City Council needed to spend thirty minutes
discussing the Active Living Policy on November 9.
Mr. Harmening stated it is staff’s expectation that the City Council would adopt an Active Living
Policy and agreed it would not take thirty minutes. Council suggested that Staff prepare a written
report for the November 9 meeting..
2. Fiber Network Policy (with Consultant)
Mr. Pires presented the staff report and introduced Commissioners Hartman and Keeler of the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC), as well as Carl Torarp and Tim Johnson from
LocaLoop and Consultant Tom Pavek. He stated that direction is requested from the Council with
respect to conducting a long term study of the future use of the City’s fiber optic network. Council
is also requested to determine if staff should pursue an agreement with LocaLoop for the leasing of
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
fiber capacity. He added a key consideration includes how the City desires to treat the use of fiber
by others and what the City might want to require from others who are performing major
reconstruction and/or new construction in terms of adding in the capacity to have fiber connections
in those buildings. He indicated the estimated cost to complete the study is $25,000 and would be
funded from the Cable TV fund, consistent with other fiber initiatives in the past. He explained
that LocaLoop is interested in installing a Wi-MAX network that covers the entire City. LocaLoop’s
proposal has been briefly researched by Mr. Pavek and the City Attorney and it was determined that
there are no obstacles that would prevent that kind of arrangement. He further explained that
LocaLoop is proposing to build fiber extensions to the water towers, at their cost, and these
extensions would then be turned over to the City for ownership. He stated the risks to the City are
minimal and emphasized the project would be non-exclusive. The City’s role would be strictly a
lessor of assets. He added the City would gain one mile of fiber infrastructure and connectivity to
the water towers, which would be valuable in the future. He stated the TAC has reviewed
LocaLoop’s proposal and expressed support for the project.
Councilmember Basill asked if the proposed long term study could be conducted by current staff.
Mr. Pires replied that staff does not feel it has sufficient resources or sufficient expertise to prepare
the study. He added the department could likely perform some pieces of the study, but others
would still require outside expertise.
The Council discussed LocaLoop’s use of 4G technology, Wi-MAX technology, and a fiber leasing
arrangement.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he felt this presents a tremendous opportunity for the City and is
an excellent application of the fiber currently in place. He added he would like to see the City work
on running fiber from the street to locations in the City in need of revitalization, as a means of
spurring development.
Mr. Pavek agreed and stated the City should make use of its asset and market this asset for economic
development.
Mr. Torarp stated that the agreement with the City would be non-exclusive so other competitors
may enter the market; LocaLoop believes that competition is good for the City and its residents and
drives prices down. He added LocaLoop is confident it has a patentable technology, which enables
its business case and pricing scenario.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it will be important to keep TAC involved going forward and to
keep the Council updated on a regular basis.
Mr. Pires suggested the Council direct the TAC to spearhead the project and perform the ground
work. He added he would envision having TAC members participate on the study team as well as
participating in the final arrangements with LocaLoop.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
It was the consensus of the City Council to move forward with the long term study relative to the
City’s future options with respect to fiber, ordinances to require or incentivize inclusion of fiber
capabilities, and to direct staff to work with LocaLoop to finalize an agreement per Council’s
discussion.
Mr. Pires stated that the study will also address how the City’s fiber resources can be used to spur
economic development.
3. City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and noted that three consultants have submitted proposals
for facilitating the City Manager’s evaluation.
It was the consensus of the City Council to retain the services of J. Forrest, Employee Strategies,
Inc., to facilitate the City Manager performance evaluation.
4. Property Acquisition Update – 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn
property)
Mr. Locke presented the staff report stating that an environmental analysis was recently completed
by AMEC Geomatrix on behalf of the City. He stated that AMEC representatives have concluded
that while the property has impacts from the fill materials deposited on the site and the former filling
station, they are relatively low level, do not pose an immediate health risk, and could most likely
remain until the property is fully redeveloped. He added that this property appears to contain
similar material to that found on the Ellipse property. He indicated that staff has met with the
owner’s representative to discuss the environmental findings and future use of the property. He
stated that the owner expressed a willingness to reduce the purchase price of the property to
$750,000.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if environmental remediation would need to be started
immediately after purchase.
Mr. Hunt stated the City would enter the subject property into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation
and Clean-up Program (VIC), and at that time staff would determine if the MPCA is agreeable to
the City removing the building with the understanding that ultimately a developer would be
responsible for properly remediating the entire site.
Mr. Locke added that AMEC representatives are fairly confident that the MPCA will allow the City
to tear the building down without having to remediate the entire property.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he felt the EDA should purchase the property in order to
maintain control of the building and this represents the best possible solution for the City.
Mr. Hunt indicated the next step is for the EDA to consider formal approval of the purchase
agreement.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
5. 2010 Enterprise Fund Budgets and Related Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and indicated the report includes a snapshot of the Capital
Improvement Plan as it relates to the Enterprise Fund Budgets. He presented the assumptions used
by staff in preparing the Enterprise Fund budgets and noted that three contracts are currently
settled. He explained that the Sewer Fund’s expenses have been increased to reflect a $219,000
increase in sanitary sewer charges from Met Council Environmental Services (MCES); this increase
is the result of a new calculation method used to calculate flow, and results in significant increases to
participating cities. He stated Met Council staff expects the MCES charge to increase by 6% in
2011 and 2012 and 5% thereafter. Mr. Swanson added staff is enlisting assistance from Ehlers to
prepare further analysis regarding this significant increase.
Mr. Swanson presented the Solid Waste Fund budget and stated that $1 million of this fund is going
to the Capital Replacement Fund for the MSC project. He noted charges are a flat 3% and those
rates reflect where the City is at with its hauler.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that the City is currently in negotiations with Eureka, and this budget
assumes no change in the current contract with Eureka.
Mr. Swanson presented the Storm Water Fund budget and noted this budget reflects a very small
increase and removes some of the capital outlay. He explained that staff is proposing to increase
some of the flat fees from $13.50 to $15.00 which is why the budget shows a large percentage
increase.
Mr. Swanson presented the Water Fund budget and indicated expenses increased by 10.85%. He
noted that the City has some meter work or replacements going on throughout city and this
increased the expenses in this budget.
Mr. Swanson presented the preliminary Capital Improvement Plan for the Enterprise Funds. He
stated the City has an aggressive plan in place to maintain the City’s infrastructure, and the numbers
have been forecasted out to 2019.
Mr. Harmening indicated that further information will be brought to the Council, including a full
snapshot of how the City’s funds look out to 2018 and 2019 and what the City’s rate requirements
will be.
6. Communications (verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. September 2009 Monthly Financial Report
8. Quarterly Investment Report (July-September, 2009)
9. Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update
10. Regional Trail Crossings
11. Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Refunding Bonds
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 26, 2009
1. Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:52 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phillip Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmembers absent: Sue Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director/Deputy City Manager
Nancy Gohman, and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Request for Closed Meeting for Labor Negotiations Strategy
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report requesting a closed meeting to take place in the
Westwood Room immediately following this Special City Council meeting in accordance
with Minnesota Statues Section 13D.03 to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation
proposals, conducted pursuant to Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 on the following groups:
• International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (Maintenance);
• International Association of Fire Fighters Local 993;
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 220 (Dispatch);
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 206 (Patrol); and
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 218 (Sergeants).
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve City Council moving to a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations,
including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor
negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.
The motion passed 6-0.
3. Adjournment
The Special City Council meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 26, 2009
1. Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phillip Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmembers absent: Sue Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director/Deputy City Manager
Nancy Gohman.
Others present: Scott Lepak, Attorney at Law, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
2. Closed Executive Session for Labor Negotiations Strategy
Labor negotiation discussions with Consultant Scott Lepak for the following bargaining units:
• International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (Maintenance);
• International Association of Fire Fighters Local 993;
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 220 (Dispatch);
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 206 (Patrol); and
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 218 (Sergeants).
3. Adjournment
The Closed Executive Session adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2009
The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill (arrived at 6:48 p.m.), C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, and Loran Paprocki, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Assistant Zoning
Administrator (Mr. Morrison) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic Signs
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that changes to the existing ordinance are
intended to address new technology and to prevent electronic signs from becoming a nuisance
and/or distraction to motorists and residents. She stated staff is suggesting that messages remain
static for at least three seconds and that the ordinance include brightness standards. She added the
three-second rule would be applied retroactively across the City. She further added, with Council
direction, staff intends to notify property owners currently affected by the ordinance to discuss the
proposed changes. Following that, a public hearing would be scheduled for the Planning
Commission based on public and property owner input to change the ordinance.
Mr. Scott indicated that the revised ordinance would not impact billboards or Clear Channel at this
point because there are not currently any billboards in the City with an electronic component. He
stated billboards are non-conforming uses in the City and existing billboards cannot be expanded.
The ordinance language is intended to make it clear that converting to an electronic billboard would
be considered an expansion and thus not permitted. He explained that standard business signs are
addressed in the ordinance and would be grandfathered in from a size perspective with a maximum
40 square foot limitation and the requirement that a message remain static for three seconds.
Mr. Morrison stated that there are currently some signs in the City that do not meet the proposed
standards, primarily the AARCEE sign on Highway 100 and the Associated Bank sign on 394. He
added the proposed ordinance is intended to address brightness levels and to prohibit messages that
scroll, flash, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she has received complaints about the Lenox sign because it is across
from a residential area and residents have complained that the sign is flashing in their bedrooms
while they are trying to sleep.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Councilmember Basill stated he felt it will be important to find a balance in the ordinance that
works effectively throughout the City.
Councilmember Omodt agreed and stated the City does not want to be behind the curve in
regulating these types of signs, even though there does not currently appear to be a problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she had a hard time conceptualizing the three-second rule and
questioned whether three seconds is too short. She also expressed concern about these types of signs
being allowed in residential districts.
Mr. Morrison pointed out that approximately half of the existing signs are located in residential
areas, e.g., churches and community centers.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested imposing a time limit for when the signs can be lit as a way to
control any distraction to drivers.
Mr. Morrison suggested the signs could remain static on one message throughout the night.
Councilmember Paprocki stated owners will want their advertising to take place when a potential
customer is in the area. He stated he would like to see the ordinance better define brightness.
Mr. Morrison indicated the brightness standards are intended to match a backlit sign and the only
change would be when the sign changes to a new message. He noted that a lot of the proposed
language is taken from other cities that have gone through this and there is a common standard that
is starting to emerge.
Councilmember Basill stated the City is not trying to prevent anyone from doing what they want to
do, rather the City is attempting to be proactive by defining what it wants the City to look like.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested the definition for “sign flashing” be revised to indicate flashing by
means of automation or other technology. She also suggested that the brightness standards simply
reflect that a sign cannot impair or distract, in order to avoid any debate that someone’s vision was
impaired. She requested that further research be conducted regarding the brightness standard as it
relates to any impact on nearby residential areas.
Ms. McMonigal stated staff will move forward with preparing a draft ordinance for review by
affected property owners.
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2009
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Sanger, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein,
Paul Omodt, and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), City
Attorney (Mr. Scott), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Assistant Finance Director (Mr. Swanson),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison),
Assistant Planner (Mr. Fulton), Facilities Superintendent (Mr. Altepeter), Police Sergeant (Mr.
Garland), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Others present: St. Louis Park Lion’s Club (Mr. Harjes) and CSM Properties (Mr. Ferrier).
2. Presentations
2a. St. Louis Park Lions Club Community Appreciation Award
Mr. Vern Harjes, on behalf of the St. Louis Park Lions Club, presented the City with the
Lions Club’s Community Appreciation Award. Mr. Harjes stated the Lions Club is
honoring the City for its ongoing support of the Lions Club’s annual pancake breakfast, the
Parktacular food stand and waffle breakfast, and the Fourth of July food activities. He
expressed their appreciation to the City Council and Parks and Recreation staff for their
efforts.
Councilmember Finkelstein accepted the award on behalf of the City.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Study Session Minutes of October 12, 2009
The minutes were approved as presented.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
3b. City Council/School Board Joint Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2009
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Minutes October 19, 2009
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2378-09 adopting fees for 2010 as
outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve summary, and
authorize publication.
4b. Authorize the Execution of a Contract with Qwest Communications to Upgrade the
911 Emergency Communications System for an Amount not to exceed $271,574.00.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 09-140 authorizing final payment to J. Carlson & Son’s in
the amount of $5,635.38 for City Hall Exterior Renovation Project No. 2008-2700,
Contract No. 100-08.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 09-141 ratifying the publication of a notice of public
hearing and establishing the date for a public hearing regarding the issuance of health
care facilities revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152
through 469.1651, as amended.
4e. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
4f. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes September 15, 2009.
4g. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009.
4h. Approve for Filing Charter Commission 2008 Annual Report.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve
the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
6. Public Hearings
6a. Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, False Alarms, Mowing, Tree
Removal/Injection, and Other Miscellaneous Charges
Resolution No. 09-142
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and provided a brief overview of the public process
undertaken by the City pertaining to assessment of delinquent utility accounts, false alarms,
mowing, tree removal/injection, and other miscellaneous charges. He explained that
accounts remaining delinquent and unpaid at close of business on November 6, 2009 will be
sent to Hennepin County for inclusion with 2010 property tax bills. He stated that 1,687
letters were sent to customers; balances past due as of September 22, 2009, are considered
delinquent. He indicated that the total delinquent amount as of October 27, 2009, is
$589,363 on 1,220 accounts. Customers have until November 6, 2009, to pay the
outstanding balance before this amount is certified to Hennepin County. He added that
past due amounts do not include interest at 5.85% for thirteen months and a $30 per
account administrative fee. He noted that at the point of certification with Hennepin
County, these amounts become liens on the property itself.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Pro
Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to adopt
Resolution No. 09-142 Levying Assessment and Reassessment for Delinquent Utility
Accounts, False Alarms, Mowing, Tree Removal/Injection, and Other Miscellaneous
Charges.
The motion passed 6-0.
6b. On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License with Sunday Sales – El GordoUno, Inc.
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and stated the applicant previously withdrew his first
application in August 2008 based on police department concerns with the findings contained
in the background investigation. She indicated the City Council has reviewed this
application in Study Session and asked for additional information, which is contained in the
agenda materials.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing.
Kate Becker, attorney for Mr. Alguizar, appeared before the City Council and stated the
applicant is the sole owner of the restaurant and Mr. Alguizar feels the liquor license would
be a nice accompaniment to offer his customers.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Baldomero Valenzo Alguizar stated he has supplied the City Council with an additional
letter, dated October 22, 2009, in support of his application and which is contained in the
agenda materials.
Councilmember Paprocki requested further information regarding the applicant’s use of two
last names.
Mr. Alguizar stated in Mexico it is custom to use two last names, and Valenzo is his father’s
last name. He indicated that all his immigration papers and his diploma state Valenzo and
not Alguizar; however, both names are on his social security number.
Councilmember Basill stated the most concerning item he read in the staff report was the
applicant’s falsifying information about his prior convictions.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted the incident in December 2007 involving the applicant’s
stepson and stated it was his understanding that the applicant is on probation for two years.
Mr. Alguizar stated he is on probation until June 2010.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested the record reflect that Mr. Alguizar is currently on
probation.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Omodt stated he agreed with the assessment of the Police Chief regarding
the applicant’s request and stated he will not be voting in favor of the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the legal standard for approving a liquor license includes a
standard that the applicant is of good moral character. She stated she has previously voiced
her reservations, including the fact that the applicant is on probation through June 2010.
She added Mr. Alguizar’s actions in 2007 seemed to indicate some disrespect for law
enforcement; and when the City grants a liquor license, the City is trusting that the applicant
will help the City enforce the laws, that customers do not leave the premises intoxicated, and
that minors are not served. She stated one of Mr. Alguizar’s convictions is for interfering
with a call to 911. She indicated she cannot support the application at this time and would
not want to revisit this application until Mr. Alguizar finishes his probation.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he is also concerned about Mr. Alguizar’s past history and it
raises questions that must be dealt with. He stated it appears Mr. Alguizar has made positive
progress since the early 2000s, but felt that granting the liquor license would be premature.
He stated he would be in favor of directing staff to wait until the applicant’s probation has
been completed and allowing Mr. Alguizar to re-apply for the liquor license at that time.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Mr. Scott stated the City Council must decide if there is enough evidence to deny the license
based on the moral character of the applicant, as outlined in MN Statutes 364.05. He added
if the City Council denies the application, the motion should be to direct the City Attorney
to prepare written findings for denial for consideration at the November 16, 2009, Council
meeting. He indicated those findings would also address when the applicant could re-apply
for the liquor license; the end of the applicant’s probation period under his latest conviction
could be used as a benchmark for re-applying.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to deny
the application for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales to El GordoUno,
Inc., dba El Gordo Mexican Restaurant located at 8140 Highway 7, and directing the City
Attorney to prepare written findings and decision denying the application for consideration
at the November 16 Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to state that in
addition to the applicant’s completion of probation, that the applicant shall have no further
criminal charges or liquor-related infractions at the time of his reapplication.
Councilmember Paprocki agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Omodt agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Finkelstein pointed out that if the City Council denies the applicant’s
liquor license until such time as he makes reapplication, it does not mean he will be
automatically granted the liquor license in the future.
The motion passed 6-0.
6c. Consolidated Public Hearing
(1) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1.
Resolution No. 09-143
(2) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Resolution No. 09-144
(3) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Resolution No. 09-145
(4) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4.
Resolution No. 09-146
(5) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5.
Resolution No. 09-147
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
(6) 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6.
Resolution No. 09-148
Mr. Altepeter presented the staff report and stated annually the City Council must set a service
charge for the District. He stated Special Service District #1’s 2010 budget is $126,592 and the
2010 service charge is $32,534; Special Service District #2’s 2010 budget is $44,660 and the
2010 service charge is $44,660; Special Service District #3’s 2010 budget is $63,000 and the
2010 service charge is $63,000; Special Service District #4’s 2010 budget is $38,100 and the
2010 service charge is $0 (he noted this district was set up prior to actual construction of the
streetscape improvements); Special Service District #5’s 2010 budget is $26,400 and the 2010
service charge is $26,400; and Special Service District #6’s 2010 budget is $24,450 and the 2010
service charge is $12,225.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the City has a rule or guideline in place stating that each
Special Service District should have reserves for 50% of its budget. She noted the amount
being charged property owners plus the reserve will wipe out the Special Service District #6.
Mr. Altepeter stated at this point Special Service District #6 is being billed in 2009 for part
of 2010 expenses rather than assessing it.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the consolidated public hearing. No speakers were present.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the consolidated public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-143 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-144 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-145 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-146 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-147 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 5 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-148 Approving 2010 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for
Special Service District No. 6 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
The motions passed 6-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. El Gordo’s Restaurant – Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant with
Intoxicating Liquor. Resolution No. 09-149
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. He stated the Planning Commission has reviewed
the applicant’s request and is recommending approval, subject to the conditions noted. He
added if the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the owner cannot sell liquor until his
liquor license is approved.
Councilmember Basill asked if there is any time restriction for re-applying for the
Conditional Use Permit if it expires in one year; in other words, if the CUP is approved, but
the liquor license is not, the applicant has one year to get a liquor license.
Mr. Harmening stated the applicant could make reapplication one year and one day from
now if the CUP expired. He stated the CUP is valid for one year and if, for whatever reason,
the applicant does not act on the CUP, he does not have to wait another year.
Councilmember Basill asked if it is true that there is no relevance or correlation with the
CUP and any legality with the liquor license, and that they are independent.
Mr. Scott stated this is correct.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt
Resolution No. 09-149 Granting Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-194(d)(4) of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit a Restaurant with
Intoxicating Liquor for Property Zoned C-2 General Commercial and Located at 8140 State
Highway #7.
The motion passed 6-0.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 8
8b. CSM/BPG Properties – Hotel Proposal
Resolutions No. 09-150 and 09-151
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. He explained the applicants are proposing to build a
seven-story hotel within the Metropoint office complex adjacent to the 600 Tower. He
stated the Planning Commission has reviewed the property twice and is recommending
approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD. He presented an overview of the site design and
noted that an easement variance and sidewalk variance from the subdivision ordinance are
requested. He indicated that staff is supportive of the variances and noted that easements are
not required for any new utilities, public or private. The sidewalk variance is requested due
to technical difficulties in constructing a sidewalk which staff found had special conditions
affecting the property and the owner’s ability to construct a sidewalk. He discussed the
Special Permit governing the site and stated if the Preliminary Plat and PUD are approved,
the applicant would withdraw from the Special Permit area and create its own PUD at the
time of the final PUD and Plat approval. Staff feels the PUD better suits this area for future
redevelopment and other changes to the office complex. He reviewed the landscaping and
tree replacement and noted the applicant has requested an alternative provision of the
landscape ordinance by providing urban features including native plantings, benches and
pedestrian walkways.
Mr. John Ferrier, CSM Properties, introduced the development team and expressed his
thanks to City staff for their assistance on the project. He stated their timeline for
construction is based on market conditions.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated there does not appear to be any parking provided for bicycles.
Mr. Fulton stated the applicant has included sixteen parking spaces to meet the requirements
for the hotel; the chart on page 3 of the staff report is incorrect. He stated that the
remainder of the bicycle parking is provided as “proof of parking,” as there is not a need for
it at this time.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to Adopt
Resolution No. 90-150 Giving Approval for Preliminary Plat of MetroPoint with Variances
from Subdivision Ordinance for Sidewalk and Easement.
The motion passed 6-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to Adopt
Resolution No. 09-151 Approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) under
Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning for Property Zoned
O-Office located at 600 Highway 169.
The motion passed 6-0.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 3e) Page 9
9. Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger encouraged residents to vote tomorrow. She stated residents will be
voting for three seats on the School Board and four seats on the City Council.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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 6216 Cambridge Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 6216 Cambridge Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Douglas J. Miller, owner of the single family residence at 6216 Cambridge Street has requested the City to
authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines
for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special
assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $3,900.00.
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, Assistant Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
6216 CAMBRIDGE STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 6216 Cambridge Street has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single
family residence located at 6216 Cambridge Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $3,900.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary
to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 82-09 Allied Blacktop Company – Project No. 2009-0001.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $15,601.51 for the 2009
City Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company accepting work on contract sealcoating, Project
No. 2009-0001, City Contract No. 82-09.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2009 Sealcoat Project– City Project No. 2009-0001. The
project was advertised, bid and awarded to Allied Blacktop Company on July 9, 2009 in the amount
of $294,202.49. This project included sealcoating selected streets in Pavement Management Area 1
which comprises the neighborhoods of Texa Tonka, Oak Hill, and Lenox.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (10 days) at a final contract
cost of $312,030.24, an overrun of $17,827.75. The overrun is attributable to some additional
streets added to the project after work commenced.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2009 capital budget. The work will be paid for
using Pavement Management Funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,601.51 FOR THE 2009 CITY SEALCOAT PROJECT
WITH ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY ACCEPTING WORK ON
CONTRACT SEALCOATING
CITY PROJECT NO. 2009-0001
CONTRACT NO. 82-09
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated July 6, 2009, Allied Blacktop Company
has satisfactorily completed the contract sealcoating, as per Contract No. 82-09.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 294,202.49
Overrun 17,827.75
Contract Amount $ 312,030.24
Previous Payments 296,428.73
Balance Due $ 15,601.51
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Change Order No. 3 to Contract 72-08 – Street Project – Park Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-
1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Change Order No. 3 to Contract 72-08 - Street Project – Park Place Boulevard –
Project No. 2007-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total change order expenditures exceed $100,000.
BACKGROUND:
History
On June 2, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract to Valley Paving, Inc. providing for the
reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard. The contract was based on construction plans prepared by SRF
Consulting Engineers and approved by the City Council on April 28, 2008. On October 6, 2008, the
City Council approved Change Order No.1 in the amount of $210,964.64. Change Order No. 1
essentially extended the project limits on Park Place Boulevard from Gamble Drive to Cedar Lake Road.
On May 4, 2009, the Council approved Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $47,146.61. Change
Order No. 2 essentially provided for additional lighting for the project and adjustments related to
additional underground work, removals and adjustments due to utility conflicts and/or other unforeseen
conditions encountered during the course of construction.
Additional Work Items
Change Order No. 3 provides for the design and reconstruction of private irrigation systems adjacent to
the project. The widening of Park Place Boulevard, along with the addition of a multi-use trail required
additional permanent and temporary easements from adjacent properties in order to perform the
construction. As a result, existing irrigation systems in conflict with the work needed to be re-designed
and relocated accordingly. This work was also made challenging with the presence of several private
utilities in the same area as well. The additional amount was negotiated by the project engineer (SRF)
with the contractor and their sub-contractor.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
The work performed by the Contractor under Contract 72-08 is now revised as follows:
Original Contract $ 4,038,465.97
Change Order No. 1 $ 210,964.64
Change Order No. 2 $ 47,146.61
Change Order No. 3 $ 19,360.00
Total $ 4,315,937.22
Original estimates for the roadway and streetscape portions of Park Place Boulevard were $5,000,000
and $1,500,000, respectfully. With the addition of Change Order No. 2, along with engineering,
administrative, and other costs, the projected final cost of the project still falls within those original
estimates. The cost of the improvements will be paid from Developer and EDA funds.
Projected Estimates
Street Reconstruction $ 5,000,000
Streetscape Construction $ 1,500,000
Projected Funding
Development Agreement (Duke) $ 250,000
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) $ 5,000,000
HRA Levy and/or TIF $ 1,250,000
Contract Terms
All other terms of the Contract will remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Design of the Park Place Boulevard Roadway and Streetscape Improvements will consider and
accomplish the following Vision related goals:
Sidewalks and Trails and Transportation:
1. Will provide improved safety and facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Will provide stronger links to destinations, including gathering centers and transit facilities.
Attachment: Change Order No. 3
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 119-08 – DMJ Corporation – Project No. 2008-0070.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of $35,566.70 for paving of
a trail, parking lots and courts at Fern Hill Park, City Project No. 2008-0070, Contract No. 119-08.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
On September 15, 2008, the City Council approved a contract in the amount of $251,307.44 to
DMJ Corporation for construction of City Project No. 20080070, paving at Fern Hill Park for the
development project. The project consists of paving a trail, parking lot, basketball court, tennis
court, and curb and gutter. The project has been completed and the work is satisfactory to staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The total contract decrease as a result of Change Order No. 1 is $10,399.64. Combined with the
original contract amount of $251,307.44, the approved final contract construction cost is
$240,907.80. The deduction is attributable primarily to final measured quantities.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,566.70
FOR PAVING OF A TRAIL, PARKING LOTS AND COURTS AT FERN HILL PARK,
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-0070, CONTRACT NO. 119-08
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated September 16, 2008, DMJ Corporation has
satisfactorily completed paving of a trail, parking lots and courts at Fern Hill Park as per Contract No.
114-08.
2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to
make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $251,307.44
Change Order No. 1 -$10,399.64
Total Contract $240,907.80
Previous Payments $205,341.10
Balance Due $35,566.70
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT) Worker’s Compensation Program for the insurance renewal period
December 1, 2009 – November 30, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council approve the continuation of providing Worker’s Compensation insurance through
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for the new premium amount for
December 1, 2009 – November 30, 2010?
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Council approved participation in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation coverage. The
policy year for this coverage runs from December 1 – November 30 each year.
Self-Insured Costs:
From 1993 to 2003, the City was self-insured for Worker’s Compensation, using Sedgwick Claims
Management to administer our claims. We continue to be responsible for work comp activity,
including reactivated claims, from that timeframe. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue
using Sedgwick for administration of these old outstanding claims. We are in the process of
obtaining a 2010 quote from Sedgwick to administer these claims.
Fully-Insured Costs:
LMCIT has provided us with a renewal quote for the new contract year. The quote is as follows:
Current
12/1/08 – 11/30/09
Renewal
12/1/09 – 11/30/10
Increase
$385,965 $410,189 6.3%
The increase is based on estimated payroll and our experience modification factor (review of claims
activity) of .88. The lower the experience modification factor, the higher the discount we receive on
premiums. Our experience of .88 shows that we have had an increased level of claims activity as
compared to previous years. We also receive a 2% premium discount by participating in managed
care.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Volunteers:
In January 2007, the City began providing Worker’s Compensation coverage to City volunteers via
LMCIT for an annual cost of $2,100. The cost for this coverage has not yet been determined for
2010, but staff recommends continued participation in this program.
RECOMMENDATION:
We are pleased with how the Worker’s Compensation claims are being handled through LMCIT.
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing continued participation
in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation insurance coverage effective December 1, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for the fully-insured Worker’s Compensation coverage through LMCIT are included in the
budget and charged back to departments. Funds for administration of old outstanding claims from
when we were self-insured with Sedgwick have also been reserved in the uninsured loss fund of the
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCIT)
WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt Worker’s Compensation coverage and programs
to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that:
1. The City continues coverage with the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust for Worker’s
Compensation coverage effective December 1, 2009.
2. The City Manager shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made
between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for Worker’s
Compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary
administration, processing, and settlement of such open claims.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 31 through November 13, 2009.
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
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,860.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACE BLACKTOP INC
2,860.00
14.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESACE SUPPLY CO
14.00
20.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADAMS, MARGARET
20.63
26,943.152008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM INC
26,943.15
10,610.09STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIALBINSON PRO COLOR
10,610.09
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESALLEN, BILL
140.25
237.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
237.00
5.37FAMILY PROGRAMS CONCESSION SUPPLIESALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU
5.37
234.07TV PRODUCTION OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC
234.07
39.86-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAMERICAN MARKING CORP
619.71WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
579.85
31.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSAMERICAN PRESSURE INC
31.98
142.24PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
62.23PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
48.84BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
44.43VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
126.61WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
126.60SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
550.95
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 2
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
376.30TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEAUSTIN, STEVEN
376.30
1,178.25REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,178.25
1,529.97OFF-LEASH DOG PARK IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBACHMANS
1,529.97
154.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBAGLOO, IRA
154.69
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBAGNE, AMY
140.25
136.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBAHNER, KRISTIN
136.13
140.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBAILEY, MICHAEL
140.00
138.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARBO, BARBARA
138.19
1,820.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
1,820.00
51.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
51.28
59.35ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEBEEKS PIZZA
59.35
178.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBENSON, JANET
178.06
66.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBERGQUIST, ROGENE
66.00
6.64PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
6.64
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 3
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
175.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBJORGAARD, DEB
175.75
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOMQUIST, NAN
140.25
154.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOOM, JAN
154.94
197.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOOM, JON
197.69
30.25-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBLUE SKY GUIDE
470.25SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
440.00
294.81INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGBOETTCHER, ANN
294.81
173.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBOTNER, LOREN
173.44
247.67TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEBOTTGE, LYNN
247.67
125.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRATLAND, ROSEMOND
125.81
412.50CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
412.50
125.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUNSTEIN, FARREL
125.81
224.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBREHMER, DAVID
224.25
400.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRIGGS, AMY
400.00
423.28NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
423.28
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 4
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
286.66INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRUHN, AMBER
286.66
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEBRYAN, VINCENT
35.00
154.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBURGGRAFF, KATE
154.94
129.95OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSCARDINAL HEALTH
129.95
5,635.38OFFICE EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESCARLSON & SON'S, J
5,635.38
1,121.73PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCATCO PARTS SERVICE
1,121.73
172.87EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
172.87
10,360.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,360.00
195.00PLUMBING MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICECERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
195.00
1,507.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCHEM SYSTEMS LTD
1,507.51
168.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCHRISTENSEN, MARY LOU
168.19
16.00ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSECITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
17.67HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
98.70POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,085.35Justice Assistance Grant -2005 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
79.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,136.80PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
148.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
257.07PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 5
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5.29-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
175.95CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
614.58TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING EXPENSE
190.00SOLID WASTE TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
3,814.30
300.50CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
300.50
148.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCOCHRAN, SUSAN
148.19
250.33INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
250.33
15,310.76ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
15,310.76
1,283.92CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
1,283.92
500.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
5,325.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,825.00
121.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCONERY, MARY KAYE
121.69
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCONNELL, MELISSA
140.25
8,158.89POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
5,525.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
5,525.80
324.99TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEDAWSON, P
324.99
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDEANE, BETTY
148.50
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 6
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
2,462.98INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
2,487.98
221.50ENTERPRISE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
221.50
2,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
2,500.00
150.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDOSAL, FRANK
150.56
173.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDRACHE, KAY
173.31
171.05TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEDRIESSEN, NANCY
171.05
41.78TRAININGTRAININGDRULEY, MATTHEW
41.78
282.01SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDRYWALL SUPPLY INC
282.01
475.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
475.00
1,413.15PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEGAN OIL CO
1,413.15
248.02TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEEITINGON, DANIEL
248.02
5,310.53ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN
5,310.53
286.15SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
286.15
3,710.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACE G&A OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTELERT & ASSOCIATES
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 7
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,710.00
748.13TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEEMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC
748.13
180.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESENZ, MARY
180.63
631.76TV PRODUCTION OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTEPA AUDIO VISUAL INC
631.76
22.32SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
22.32
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEVERS, CAROL
140.25
226.23PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
226.23
4.61ENTERPRISE G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGESFAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC
105.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
109.61
5.00SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEFEDEX
5.00
223.85ARENA MAINTENANCE MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
223.85
3,832.60PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFINE PROPERTIES OF MN LLP
3,832.60
256.21TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEFINK, DAVID & SUSAN
256.21
53.75OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
53.75
20.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFISCHELS, ANGELA
20.63
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 8
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
115.98PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
115.98
700.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGFORENSIC PARTNERSHIP TRAINING
700.00
261.90WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
261.90
33.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGAGNER, NANCY
33.00
198.88ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGARDNER, PETER
198.88
672.14EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGARLAND, MIKAEL
672.14
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGEORGE, MICHAEL
123.75
121.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGERHARDSON, JOAN
121.69
152.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGORMLEY, MAUREEN
152.63
20.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGORMLEY, TIM
20.63
47.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAINGER INC, WW
237.54WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
284.82
497.50WIRING REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
497.50
5,000.00ESCROWSBROOKSIDE TRAFFIC STUDYGRIFFIN PETROLEUM SERVICES
5,000.00
34.32DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGRONSKI, PAM
34.32
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 9
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,900.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
3,900.00
588.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
588.00
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHAMILTON, SYLVIA POSZ
148.50
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHANLEY, SHEILA
86.63
248.02TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEHART, WILLIAM & LYNDA
248.02
6,454.80WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
6,454.80
168.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENDRIX, MARY
168.44
1,000.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
1,000.00
135.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
215.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
350.70
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHILL, BERNICE
148.50
192.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHINZ, TODD
192.81
25.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHOFFMAN, BRIAN
365.19INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
390.19
41.59PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
61.15SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
180.78PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 10
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
283.52
38.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
16.02PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.38TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.56BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.81SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
33.07STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
152.12
23.62FAMILY PROGRAMS CONCESSION SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
111.16HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
134.78
203.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUIRAS, KEN
203.50
65.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUIRAS, SHIRLEY
65.25
25.65IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
25.65
313.31PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
313.31
180.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIMSA
180.00
110.34ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTJ & F REDDY RENTS
110.34
3.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
3.60
324.99TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEJEWELL, KURTIS
324.99
117.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESJOHNSON, MARY
117.56
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 11
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11,800.002008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC
11,800.00
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKALK, TODD
123.75
239.46TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEKAMP, KENDALL & DIANA
239.46
11.45-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSKANTOLA PRODUCTIONS LLC
177.95PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAINING
166.50
80,273.62ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON
139.84CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80,413.46
495.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
326.00ESCROWS
375.00HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES
608.00SUNSET RIDGE LEGAL SERVICES
1,804.00
138.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKERTES, ANNE
138.19
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKLEINMAN, JAN
140.25
367.75TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEKNISELY, G E
367.75
80.00HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIESKNOLLWOOD LIQUOR
80.00
173.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKOEPCKE, STEPHEN
173.31
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKOHLER, CAROL
142.31
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKRAUSE, MARGUERITE
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 12
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144.38
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKREMER, PATRICIA
144.38
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKULAS, COOKIE
144.38
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKURTZ, J HAMILTON
86.63
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKURTZ, KIRSTEN
86.63
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLAPRAY, JAMI
195.25
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLARSON, DAVID
195.25
385.70GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
13.58INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
533.53RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
932.81
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLARSON, SHARON
142.31
258.57TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCELARSON, THOMAS
258.57
40.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
40.00
1,000.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
1,000.00
94.88ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLEE, JOAN
94.88
350.15TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCELEONARD, MARY MADONNA
350.15
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 13
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
85.40POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
85.40
256.39PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTSLIND ELECTRONICS INC
256.39
125.00BASKETBALLPROGRAM REVENUELINDSTROM, SAM
125.00
60.07POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLOFFLER COMPANIES
324.55COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OFFICE SUPPLIES
8.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL POSTAGE
392.62
117.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLYNCH, TOM
117.56
720.21PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMAACO AUTO PAINTING
720.21
76.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAISEL, PAULA
76.31
173.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMALCOMSON, NANETTE
173.44
125.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMANUEL, JULIE ANNE
125.81
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAREK, MARGARET
144.38
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARSKE, AVA
144.38
180.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARTENS, BRENDA
180.38
138.38FINANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMATRIX LASER CARE INC
138.38
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 14
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
178.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAYNARD, MARY
178.06
265.12TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEMCCAGUE, ANN & SCOTT
265.12
146.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMCKAY, KATHY
146.13
424.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
424.00
285,423.79OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
285,423.79
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMETZKER, KATHY
144.38
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMEYERS, SALLY
140.25
30.03WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMICRO CENTER
30.03
2,323.00STORM WATER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST AQUA CARE
2,323.00
150,149.72PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
1,158.84WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
151,308.56
230.38EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
230.38
1,351.11EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,351.11
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
5,378.21WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT
5,378.21
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 15
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
385.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL
385.00
250.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMINT CONDITION DETAILING
250.28
12.65BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC
187.72WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
200.37
132.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
132.00
112.64OPERATIONSTRAININGMNSCU MRTC
112.64
145.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGMOBIUS INC
145.00
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMONSON, PATRICIA
74.25
132.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOREAU, NATALIE
132.00
27.21PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
27.21
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMPELRA
300.00
125.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMURMAN, JEFFREY
125.81
265.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
265.00
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNALEZNY, LOIS
148.50
23.49GROUNDS MTCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 16
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
68.70INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
150.35PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
29.11PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.90ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
51.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
204.33PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.77GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
116.68BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
717.04
2,200.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWNELSON, ANDREW
2,200.00
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNELSON, KELLEY
144.38
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNERHEIM, CONSTANCE
78.38
230.59TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCENOBLE-QUATTELBAUM, VIRGINIA
230.59
2,300.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICENORTHWESTERN DOOR CO
2,300.00
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOBERG, LAURA
86.63
192.41ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
275.12POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
72.66POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.11OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
364.08INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.89PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,055.06
2,155.62INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 17
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,155.62
3,295.76PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
160.32WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
96.18NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
85.502008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGS
3,723.26
187.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOTTERBLAD, PATRICIA
187.94
121.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPALM, PATRICIA
121.69
853.20TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPANZER, CHRISTINA
853.20
189.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
189.75
66.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPETERMEIER, JOSIE
66.00
74.29ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH
7.70ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
26.62ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.16POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
26.00SUPERVISORYMEETING EXPENSE
36.52OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
14.47OPERATIONSTRAINING
27.20INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
61.23INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
42.50INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
24.00INSPECTIONS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
1.00INSPECTIONS G & A MISC EXPENSE
20.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1.60SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
382.93
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 18
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
48.32WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
7.92WESTWOOD G & A POSTAGE
14.03WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
10.37FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
62.96HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.89SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.49
54.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLOOF, PATRICIA
54.00
157.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLOVNICK, ROSS
157.25
177.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLUMERI, MARGARET
177.94
1,096.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
1,096.50
613.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
613.25
311.36WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
311.35SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
311.35SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
311.36STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,245.42
36.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPOSZ, ALBERT
36.56
1,353.03TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
1,353.03
144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
520.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPRO HYDRO-TESTING
520.00
230.91TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEPROESCHEL, MARY
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 19
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
230.91
3,649.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
3,649.50
180.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRAINEY, WILLIAM
180.38
2,016.58FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
909.47REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
337.68WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
674.20SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,937.93
135.30ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREED CONSTRUCTION DATA
135.30
66.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESROSE, FRED
66.00
197.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRUHL, BARBARA
197.69
119.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRUTH, ROGER
119.63
3,090.00SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSCALE-TEC LTD
3,090.00
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHEMEL, LYLA
86.63
3,757.68PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
3,757.68
374.90INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHLATTER, MARTI
374.90
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHMIT, FRANCIS
148.50
181.50ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 20
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
181.50
36.64INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGSCHWAAB INC
36.64
168.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCULLY, MARYJO
168.81
2,675.03PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
2,926.14PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,686.61SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,287.78
197.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSERRELL, JUDITH
197.69
279.96PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE
279.96
20.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHAPIRO, JUDY
20.63
75.65-PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
405.43PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
329.78
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSHETAY, TIBEBU & JENNIFER
1,000.00
293.40INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIMMONS, DENISE
293.40
1,095.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
1,095.28
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSLAGER, EUNICE
195.25
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUESLAUGHTER, NICOLE
35.00
177.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSMITH, ESTHER
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 21
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
177.38
832.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSPRINGSTED
832.50
8.83CRACK SEALING PROJECTS EQUIPMENT PARTSSPS COMPANIES INC
311.54BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
320.37
6,994.09PE INVES/REV/PERMITS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
75.52PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
15,033.63PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
244.44CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,410.12CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
26,757.80
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESST LAWRENCE, ANNETTE
144.38
119.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTANCHFIELD, SHERM
119.63
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTAPLETON, KRIS
144.38
223.60ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
223.60
154.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTEEGE, RICHARD
154.94
90.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTEHLY, KATHERINE
90.75
35,000.00GENERAL INFORMATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEP
35,000.00
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTEVENSON, LEAH
74.25
5.33POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
1,396.67PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTS
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 22
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,402.00
324.53TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCESTROMSETH, DALE
324.53
20.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTRUSS, MICHELLE
20.63
1,004.58ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
472.00SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISING
1,476.58
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTANICK, PAUL
123.75
214.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTAPE, WILLIAM
214.75
31.43POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSETARGET BANK
31.43
218.92BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTARON, SUSAN
218.92
30.67ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
26.83HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
7.86COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.02IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
9.92ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
36.80FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
56.39COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
8.80FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
60.81POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
38.63OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
29.09INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.99PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
28.40ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
10.27PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
34.51ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
10.27PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
8.56ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
8.56WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 23
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9.05REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
8.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
8.32HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
10.27WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
836.77EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,322.59
28.08-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTHOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC
436.58ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
408.50
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHORNE, RICHARD
140.25
82.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHORNSJO, LUCILLE
82.50
566.26ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
566.26
1,283.25CONST MATERIALS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITRAFFIC CONTROL CORP
1,283.25
584.38SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTRI STATE BOBCAT
584.38
76.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTUBERMAN, MARCIA
76.31
19.24BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
19.24
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
370.65EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
370.65
443.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
225.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
668.00
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 24
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
383.99WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEUSA BLUE BOOK
383.99
31.06WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.06
410.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
410.50
125.21OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
125.21
266,797.35CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
266,797.35
12,720.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
12,720.28
500.00ESCROWSBROOKSIDE TRAFFIC STUDYVEIT & CO
500.00
1,297.58VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
72.86COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,370.44
13,155.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL
13,155.50
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEWALSH, JEFFREY
35.00
55,573.82SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT
23,242.70SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
28,694.80SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
23,325.72SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
130,837.04
337.05CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
337.05
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWATSON, WILLIAM
144.38
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 25
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,182.00REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
1,108.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,290.50
428.20INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGWELD & SONS PLUMBING INC
428.20
7,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSI
7,500.00
245.00SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWHEELER HARDWARE
245.00
1,207.912008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
1,207.91
170.88ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWILLIAMS, MICHAEL
170.88
446.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
346.28SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIES
793.03
98.00COUNTS AND STUDIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWSB ASSOC INC
98.00
168.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWUEBKER, DEBRA
168.81
8,826.76FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
374.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
170.23PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
449.12WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,587.13ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
629.45WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
15.76OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
130.88OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
23,184.00
340.54NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZANDER, LOIS
340.54
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 26
11/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:00:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
11/13/2009 -10/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4.88WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
4.88
Report Totals 1,296,649.13
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4f)Page 27
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4g
City of St. Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Minutes – September 2, 2009
Aquila Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:00.
Commissioners Present: Cindy Hoffman, Ken Huiras, Jim Smith, Pat Swiderski and Hans Widmer
Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
Guest: Stuart Morgan, Human Rights Commission
II. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve the May 6, 2009 minutes was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by
Commissioner Huiras. The minutes were approved as presented.
III. Summary of Children First Ice Cream Social and Open House
Chair Widmer reported that the ice cream social was fun and went well. They passed out golf
tournament information, but there wasn’t much response. The open house at the Rec Center was
well attended.
Lt. Harcey stated there were over 120 NNO block parties attend by the Police Department. Over
2,000 pounds of food was collected and donated to STEP.
IV. 2009 Golf Tournament – Final Details
Lt. Harcey indicated there were 25 golfers signed up. Last year there were 32. There are nine hole
sponsors and 18 prizes had been donated. Commissioners discussed final details for the day of the
tournament.
V. HRC Update
Stewart Morgan discussed HRC plans for the upcoming year, which will include a film series. They
are stepping up efforts for outreach with other Human Rights Commissions. A sub-committee was
formed to develop a presentation for the Diversity Lens. The HRC also participated in summer
events (ice cream social, open house, NNO). There is a new member joining the Commission and
they are looking for high school students to fill a vacant position.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
VI. PSA – Video Project – Update and Select/plan next topic
Chair Widmer indicated there are two bike programs being shown on Civil Channel 2.
Lt. Harcey noted they are doing a lot of education regarding the trail crossings. The next topic is a
Day in the Life of an Officer. An outline had been put together and he would work with an Officer
and Reg Dunlap on a program.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested including “cop shops” or something to do with Community
policing. The Commission felt this would be a good topic on its own. Commissioner Hoffman
agreed to work on an outline.
Other suggestions included doing an example of what to do if you are stopped by a Police Officer
and information about typical Police calls and statistics. Lt. Harcey would have an officer develop
information on the nature of a traffic stop.
VII. Other Business
Lt. Harcey stated over 30 people were signed up for the Citizens Academy and asked Commissioners
to attend the first few sessions to help greet people. Dates are 10/8, 10/15, 10/22, 10/29, 11/5,
11/12, and 11/14 at 6:30 PM.
Lt. Harcey discussed community issues including Continental Diamond. The budget issues for the
City are serious. Council has approved the 2010 budget at set the levy. The Police Department
isn’t affected a great deal. Two positions are being held open and they took a reduction in the
budget.
VIII. Adjourn
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Swiderski. The
motion was approved.
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 PM.
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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 - 2010 Liquor License Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting 2010 liquor license fees for
the license term March 1, 2010 through March 1, 2011 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and section
3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed increase in certain liquor license fees for 2010?
BACKGROUND:
Staff recently completed the 2010 fee study and, based on this analysis, staff is recommending
changes to 2010 liquor license fees. State law requires that the city adopt liquor license fees at a
public hearing and city ordinance permits the Council to set liquor license fees by resolution.
The following is a list of the 2009 liquor license fees and proposed fees for 2010. These proposed
fee changes have been reviewed by the Department Director and the City Manager; and reflect the
limits set forth in state law and increased costs of providing license administration and enforcement.
Liquor License Type 2009 Fee 2010 Fee
Effective 3/1/2010
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $100 $150
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $100 $150
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280 $280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $7,500 $8,000
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200
On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000
Club (per members) 1 - 200 $300 $300
201 - 500 $500 $500
501 - 1000 $650 $650
1001 - 2000 $800 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000 $3,000
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Temporary Liquor License $50/day $100/day
Background Investigation Fees: 2009 Fee 2010 Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$1,000 $500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-state
applicant may be billed up
to a maximum of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500 $500
On-sale license renewal per
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500 $500
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff is proposing modest increases ($50) to the Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor, the Off-sale 3.2
Malt Liquor, and Temporary On-sale Liquor License Fees to cover increased costs of licensing these
establishments. The paragraphs below provide more detail about two other proposed fee
adjustment: new liquor license applicants and intoxicating liquor licenses.
New License Applicant Background Investigation Fee (non-refundable)
New liquor license establishments are required to pay an additional fee to offset the cost of the
required background investigation. St. Louis Park has been charging $1,000 per new liquor license
applicant. However, state law has limited the amount cities may charge to $500. The proposed fee
decrease for background investigations will bring the city into compliance with state law. The state
has made a special allowance for cities to charge actual costs up to $10,000 for out-of-state
applicants. The proposed fee change would include this language as well.
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor
The city currently has 17 intoxicating liquor license holders in the city. The 2009 fee for an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license is $7,500. Staff proposes increasing this fee to $8,000 in 2010 and
$8,500 in 2011 to cover the increased staff time and resources that are required for license
administration and enforcement, including compliance checks. It is important to note that this fee
has not been increased since 2001.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Attachments: 2009 Liquor License Establishment by License Type
Resolution
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
2009 Liquor License Establishments License Types
License Establishment 2 am
closing
Brew
Pub
3.2
Off-sale
3.2
On-sale
Intox
On-sale
Intox
Sunday
Intox
Off-sale
Wine
On-sale
Club
On-sale
License Issued by: State City City City City City State State State
Alaska Eatery 7500 200
American Legion-Frank L 200 500
Applebee's Grill Bar 7500 200
Best of India 750 2000
Bunny’s 2 am 7500 200
Byerly’s St. Louis Park 7500 200
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 380
Chili’s Southwest Grill 7500 200
Chipotle Mexican Grill 750 2000
Cooper Irish Pub 2 am 7500 200
Costco Wholesale #377 380
Cub Foods Knollwood 100
Doubletree Park Place 2 am 7500 200
Fuddruckers 750 2000
Grand City Buffet Inc 750 2000
Granite City Food & Brew 100 7500 200
Jennings’ Liquor Store 380
Kerasotes Theatres 2 am 7500 200
Knollwood Liquor 380
Laredo’s 2 am 7500 200
Liquor Barrel, Inc. 380
Marriott Mpls West 7500 200
McCoy’s Public House 2 am 7500 200
Minneapolis Golf Club 200 500
Olive Garden #1424 7500 200
Park Tavern Lounge 2 am 7500 200
Pei Wei Asian Diner 750 2000
Rainbow Foods 100
Sam’s Club #6318 100 380
St. Louis Park Liquors 380
Target Corporation 100
Taste of India 750 2000
Texas-Tonka Liquors 380
Texa-Tonka Lanes 2 am 7500 200
TGI Friday’s 2 am 7500 200
Thanhdo Restaurant 750 2000
The Four Firkins 380
Trader Joe’s 380
Vescio's Italian Restaurant 750 2000
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 380
Westwood Liquors 380
Yangtze River Rest. 7500 200
Yum, Inc. 750 2000
TOTALS 100 400 6,750 127,500 3,800 4,560 18,000 1,000
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2010 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM
MARCH 1, 2010 – MARCH 1, 2011
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover the
cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
WHEREAS, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the City Code and Minnesota State
Statute Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the 2010 license term effective March 1,
2010 through March 1, 2011; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, fees for 2010 liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type: 2010 Fee
Effective 3/1/2010
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $150
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $150
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,000
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Background Investigation Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500
On-sale license renewal
per 340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
Agenda Item #: 6b
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 Resolution Approving and Authorizing issuance of Park Nicollet Private Activity
Revenue Refunding Bonds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of its Health Care Facilities
Revenue Refunding Bonds for the benefit of Park Nicollet Health Services, Park Nicollet Methodist
Hospital, Park Nicollet Institute, Park Nicollet Clinic, PNMC Holdings, and Park Nicollet Health
Care Products, payable solely from revenues pledged pursuant to the indenture; approving the form
of and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding
Bonds and related documents; and providing for the security, rights, and remedies with respect o the
health care facilities revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through
469.1651, as amended.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
A public hearing is before the City Council to consider approving issuance of private activity revenue
refunding bonds for Park Nicollet Health Services (PNHS). Issuance of refunding bonds for PNHS
is consistent with St. Louis Park policies.
Does the City Council wish to take the action as recommended?
BACKGROUND:
As outlined in a written staff report for the October 26, 2009 study session, Park Nicollet Health
Services is seeking to replace the variable rate portion of private activity bonds issued in 2008 with
new fixed rate debt. The total size of the refunding will not exceed $215 million. For the City to
consider this request, a public hearing must be held. Published notice of the hearing appeared in the
St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on October 29th. Immediately following the public hearing the City
Council may act to adopt the attached resolution. The resolution authorizes the issuance of private
activity bonds, approves the bond documents and authorizes the execution and delivery of the bonds
to the purchaser of the bonds.
PNHS has completed the necessary city private activity bond applications and submitted the
required application fee. The requested private activity bonds are consistent with the City’s policies
and guidelines. Those guidelines state that the applicant’s project must be compatible with the
overall development plans and objectives of the City; and, be a positive benefit to the City, among
other considerations. Clearly the on-going strength and vitality of Park Nicollet and Methodist
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Hospital are in the best interests of the City; and, consistent with the City’s long range plans, goals
and vision.
Park Nicollet has worked with the city’s bond counsel, Kennedy & Graven, on the specifics of the
proposed bond refunding and the necessary documents. This is a conduit financing and not an
obligation of the City of St. Louis Park. It does not affect the city’s ability to issue debt for its own
purposes nor does it affect the city’s bond rating.
Also attached to this staff report is a letter from the city’s bond counsel, Kennedy & Graven,
explaining in more detail Park Nicollet’s request and the process. Kennedy and Graven and
representatives from Park Nicollet will be in attendance at the November 16th City Council meeting
to answer any questions of the City Council or public hearing attendees.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Park Nicollet is responsible for the costs of preparing for and issuing the bonds. They are required by
city policy to pay an initial application fee to cover city costs. These bonds are not obligations of the
city in any respect. In addition, city policy requires payment of an annual administration fee of 1/8th
of one per cent of the outstanding principal balance of the bonds. PNHS pays this administration
fee in semi-annual payments on the principal of the previous bonds issued. PNHS will continue to
meet its obligations regarding the administration fee per the city’s policies. The monies generated
from the administration fees are deposited in the city’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The fees generated from the issuance of private activity bonds adds to the financial strength of our
Housing Rehab fund which supports our Vision of a community with diverse and well maintained
housing.
Attachments: Resolution
Kennedy and Graven Letter
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Finance Manager
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND
DELIVERY OF ITS HEALTH CARE FACILITIES REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS (PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES), SERIES
2009, FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES,
PARK NICOLLET METHODIST HOSPITAL, PARK NICOLLET
INSTITUTE, PARK NICOLLET CLINIC, PNMC HOLDINGS, AND
PARK NICOLLET HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS, PAYABLE SOLELY
FROM REVENUES PLEDGED PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE;
APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF THE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND
PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES WITH
RESPECT TO THE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), is a home rule city and
political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of
the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, as
amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to issue revenue bonds for the following purposes: (i) to
finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment or extension of a project, defined in the Act as any properties, real or personal, used or
useful in connection with a revenue-producing enterprise; and (ii) to refund, in whole or in part,
bonds previously issued by the City under the authority of the Act and interest on such bonds; and
WHEREAS, Park Nicollet Health Services, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park
Nicollet Methodist Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park Nicollet Institute, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park Nicollet Clinic, a Minnesota association that has elected to
be treated as a nonprofit corporation, PNMC Holdings, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and
Park Nicollet Health Care Products, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (collectively, the “Obligated
Group”), submitted an application to the City requesting the issuance by the City of revenue
refunding bonds pursuant to the Act, and the terms of an Indenture of Trust, dated as of December
1, 2009 (the “Indenture”), between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
“Trustee”), for the purposes of loaning the proceeds derived from the sale of the revenue refunding
bonds to the Obligated Group pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated as of
December 1, 2009 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the Obligated Group and the City, the
proceeds of such loan to be applied to the refunding of the outstanding (i) Variable Rate Demand
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2008A (the “Series 2008A
Bonds”), dated August 14, 2008, issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of
$41,830,000; (ii) Variable Rate Demand Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services),
Series 2008B-1 (the “Series 2008B-1 Bonds”), dated August 14, 2008, issued by the City in the
original aggregate principal amount of $57,645,000; and (iii) Variable Rate Demand Revenue
Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2008B-2 (the “Series 2008B-2 Bonds,” and
collectively with the Series 2008B-1 Bonds, the “Series 2008B Bonds”), dated August 14, 2008,
issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of $45,400,000; and
WHEREAS, proceeds of the Series 2008A Bonds were loaned to the Obligated Group and
applied by the Obligated Group to redeem and prepay the outstanding principal amount of the
Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2007A (the
“Series 2007A Bonds”), issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of
$41,600,000. Proceeds of the Series 2007A Bonds were previously loaned to the Obligated Group
and applied by the Obligated Group to redeem and prepay the outstanding principal amount of the
Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2003B (the “Series
2003B Bonds”), issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of $41,550,000. The
proceeds of the Series 2003B Bonds were used to finance: (i) the construction and equipping of the
Obligated Group’s Heart and Vascular Center at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital located at 6500
Excelsior Boulevard in the City, the construction of a parking ramp and other improvements at Park
Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the construction of public infrastructure improvements with respect to
the foregoing, and the acquisition and installation of equipment for Park Nicollet Methodist
Hospital; and (ii) the acquisition and installation of a computed tomography scanner (“CT
Scanner”) at Park Nicollet Clinic, located at 14000 Fairview Drive in the City of Burnsville,
Minnesota, a CT Scanner at Park Nicollet Clinic, located at 15800 95th Avenue North in the City
of Maple Grove, Minnesota, and a CT Scanner and a magnetic resonance imaging scanner (“MRI
Scanner”) at Park Nicollet Clinic, located at 250 North Central Avenue in the City of Wayzata,
Minnesota.
WHEREAS, proceeds of the Series 2008B Bonds were loaned to the Obligated Group and
applied by the Obligated Group to redeem and prepay the outstanding principal amount of the
(i) Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2007B-1, issued by
the City in the original aggregate principal amount of $56,595,000 (the “Series 2007B-1 Bonds”);
and (ii) Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2007B-1,
issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of $44,575,000 (the “Series 2007B-2
Bonds,” and collectively with the Series 2007B-1 Bonds, the “Series 2007B Bonds”). Proceeds of
the Series 2007B Bonds were loaned to the Obligated Group to finance the (i) acquisition,
construction, and equipping of an approximately 82,000 square foot building to house the
Obligated Group’s Cancer Center and related facilities with approximately 31,000 square feet of the
building reserved for future expansion, located at 6490 Excelsior Boulevard in the City; (ii)
acquisition, construction, and equipping of a new parking ramp including approximately 1,700
parking stalls adjacent to the Cancer Center; (iii) redesign and renovation of the emergency center
at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital located at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard in the City; (iv)
construction and equipping of a new common entrance to Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the
Meadowbrook Building, and the new Cancer Center; and (v) acquisition, construction, and
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
equipping of an approximately 69,000 square foot Eating Disorders Institute, including a parking
ramp and surface lot with an estimated 220 parking stalls, located at 3525 Monterey Drive in the
City.
WHEREAS, the Obligated Group has requested that the City issue revenue bonds to be
designated the Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services),
Series 2009 (the “Series 2009 Bonds”), in one or more series, subject to such changes in such
designation as elected by the Obligated Group with the consent of the City, in an original aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $215,000,000, to be issued as uninsured, fixed-rate revenue bonds of
the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, requires that prior to the issuance of bonds, this
Council approve the bonds after conducting a public hearing thereon preceded by publication of a
notice of public hearing (in the form required by Section 147(f) of the Code and applicable
regulations) in a newspaper of general circulation at least fourteen (14) days prior to the public
hearing date; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code, a notice of public hearing in the form required by
Section 147(f) of the Code was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least
fourteen days prior to the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which a
reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and
in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Series 2009 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Series 2009 Bonds are to be applied to the defeasance,
redemption and prepayment of the Series 2008A Bonds and the Series 2008B Bonds (collectively,
the “Prior Bonds”), funding required reserves, the payment of the costs of issuing the Series 2009
Bonds, payment of the costs of terminating one or more interest rate swap agreements related to the
Prior Bonds, and the payment of certain other financing costs related to the issuance of the Series
2009 Bonds and the refunding of the Prior Bonds; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the loan by the City of the proceeds of the Series 2009
Bonds to the Obligated Group and to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Series 2009 Bonds when due, the Obligated Group will issue and deliver to the City
its Series 2009 Obligation pursuant to a Supplemental Indenture, dated on or after December 1,
2009, pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2003, as amended (the
“Master Indenture”), between the Obligated Group and the Trustee as Master Trustee, which will
be in the same aggregate principal amount and bear interest at the same rates as the Series 2009
Bonds, will have redemption provisions corresponding to those of the Series 2009 Bonds, and will
be payable in installments equal to the maturities and mandatory redemptions of the Series 2009
Bonds; and
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
WHEREAS, the loan repayments required to be made by the Obligated Group under the
terms of the Loan Agreement will be assigned to the Trustee under the terms of the Indenture and
the Series 2009 Obligation will be assigned by the City to the Trustee under the terms of the
Indenture; and
WHEREAS, the Series 2009 Bonds and the interest and any premium on the Series 2009
Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor; (ii) shall not constitute a debt
of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute
nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers;
and (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of
the City other than the City’s interest in the Loan Agreement and the Series 2009 Obligation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that: (i) the issuance of the
Series 2009 Bonds is authorized by the Act; (ii) the application of the proceeds of the Series 2009
Bonds to the defeasance, prepayment and redemption of the Prior Bonds, the funding of required
reserves, the payment of the costs of issuing the Series 2009 Bonds, the payment of the costs of
terminating one or more interest rate agreements related to the Prior Bonds, and the payment of
certain other expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Series 2009 Bonds and the
refunding of the Prior Bonds is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the Act; and (iii) the
facilities refinanced with the proceeds of the Series 2009 Bonds constitute a “project” within the
meaning of Section 469.153, subdivisions 2(b) and (d), of the Act.
2. For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and
delivery of the Series 2009 Bonds in one or more series in the maximum principal amount not to
exceed $215,000,000. The Series 2009 Bonds shall bear interest at fixed rates and shall be
designated, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to
maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have such other terms, details, and provisions as are
prescribed in the Indenture, in the form now on file with the City, with the amendments referenced
herein. The City hereby authorizes the Series 2009 Bonds to be issued as “tax-exempt bonds,” the
interest on which is not includable in gross income for federal and State of Minnesota income tax
purposes.
All of the provisions of the Series 2009 Bonds, when executed as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Series 2009 Bonds shall be substantially in the form set forth in the Indenture, which form is hereby
approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions (including
changes to the name of the Series 2009 Bonds, the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2009
Bonds, the stated maturities of the Series 2009 Bonds and the maturity dates of the Series 2009
Bonds, the interest rates on the Series 2009 Bonds, and the terms of optional and mandatory
redemption of the Series 2009 Bonds) as the Mayor of the City and the City Manager of the City
(the “Mayor” and “City Manager”), in their discretion, shall determine. The execution of the Series
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
2009 Bonds with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and the
delivery of the Series 2009 Bonds by the City shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
3. The Series 2009 Bonds: (i) shall be special limited obligations of the City; (ii) shall
be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor; (iii) shall not constitute a debt of the City
within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iv) shall not constitute nor give
rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and
(v) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the
City other than the City’s interest in the Loan Agreement and the Series 2009 Obligation. The
proceeds of the Series 2009 Bonds shall be disbursed pursuant to the terms of the Indenture and the
Loan Agreement, and the principal, premium, and interest on the Series 2009 Bonds shall be
payable solely from the proceeds of the Series 2009 Bonds, the revenues derived from the Obligated
Group pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the Series 2009 Obligation, and other
funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Series 2009 Bonds shall also be secured by the Bond
Reserve Fund established by the terms of the Indenture and funded with a portion of the proceeds of
the Series 2009 Bonds (the “Bond Reserve Fund”).
4. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City
Manager to execute and deliver the Indenture, and to deliver to the Trustee the Indenture, and
hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Series 2009 Bonds in accordance with the terms of
the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the terms and conditions,
covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements of the owners of the Series 2009 Bonds, the
City and the Trustee as set forth therein.
All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed
to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and
shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall
be substantially in the form on file with the City, which is hereby approved, with such necessary and
appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or
as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution and
delivery thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such
determination.
5. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Loan Agreement, the Purchase Contract, dated on or after December 1, 2009 (the
“Purchase Contract”), between Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated (the “Underwriters”) and the City, and the Letter of Representations and
Indemnification, dated on or after December 1, 2009 (the “Letter of Representations”), between the
City, the Underwriters, and the Obligated Group. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, the
Purchase Contract, and the Letter of Representations, when executed and delivered as authorized
herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if
incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and
delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement, the Purchase Contract, and the Letter of Representations
shall be substantially in the forms on file with the City which are hereby approved, with such
omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the
City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
6. The Trustee is hereby appointed as the initial Bond Registrar with respect to the
Series 2009 Bonds.
7. The Mayor and City Manager of the City are hereby authorized to execute and
deliver, on behalf of the City, such other documents as are necessary or appropriate in connection
with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Series 2009 Bonds, including one or more certificates of
the City, an endorsement to the Obligated Group’s Tax Certificate, an Information Return for Tax-
Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, IRS Form 8038, and all other documents and certificates as
shall be necessary and appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Series
2009 Bonds. The City hereby approves the execution and delivery by the Trustee of the Indenture,
the Tax Exemption Agreement, dated on or after December 1, 2009, between the Trustee and the
Obligated Group, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, dated on or after December 1, 2009 (the
“Continuing Disclosure Agreement”), between the Obligated Group and the Trustee, and all other
instruments, certificates, and documents prepared in conjunction with the issuance of the Series
2009 Bonds that require execution by the Trustee. The City hereby authorizes Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, as bond counsel of the City, to prepare, execute, and deliver its approving legal opinion
with respect to the Series 2009 Bonds.
8. The City has not participated and will not participate in the preparation of the
Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement relating to the offer and sale of the Series
2009 Bonds (collectively, the “Official Statement”) except for information regarding the City to be
set forth in the Official Statement under captions entitled “The City” and “Litigation—The City”
(collectively, the “City Information”). The City has not made and will not make any independent
investigation with respect to the information contained in the Official Statement (except for the City
Information), including the appendices thereto, and the City assumes no responsibility for the
sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the City hereby
consents to the distribution and the use by the Underwriters in connection with the offer and sale of
the Series 2009 Bonds of the Official Statement, substantially in the form on file with the City. The
Official Statement is the sole material consented to by the City for use in connection with the offer
and sale of the Series 2009 Bonds. The City hereby approves the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
to be executed and delivered by the Obligated Group and the Trustee, in the form now on file with
the City.
9. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges
conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City or the City Council by the provisions of
this resolution or of the aforementioned documents shall be exercised or performed by the City or by
such members of the City Council, or such officers, board, body or agency thereof as may be
required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties.
No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the
aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of
any member of the City Council of the City, or any officer, agent or employee of the City in that
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
person’s individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the City nor any officer or employee
executing the Series 2009 Bonds shall be liable personally on the Series 2009 Bonds or be subject to
any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned documents, the
Series 2009 Bonds or in any other document relating to the Series 2009 Bonds, and no obligation
therein or herein imposed upon the City or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any
pecuniary liability of the City or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the
agreements, provisions, covenants and representations set forth in such documents, the City has not
obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived from
the Loan Agreement and the Series 2009 Obligation which are to be applied to the payment of the
Series 2009 Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture.
10. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the
aforementioned documents expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon
any person or firm or corporation, other than the City or any holder of the Series 2009 Bonds issued
under the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by
reason of this resolution or any provisions hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents
and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the
City and any holder from time to time of the Series 2009 Bonds issued under the provisions of this
resolution.
11. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, other than the provisions
contained in the first sentence of Section 3 hereof, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the
Series 2009 Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality
or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned
documents, or of the Series 2009 Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and
the Series 2009 Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not
been contained therein.
12. The Series 2009 Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they
are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the
Series 2009 Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the
issuance of the Series 2009 Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to
happen, exist and be performed precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have
happened, exist and have been performed as so required by law.
13. The officers of the City, bond counsel, other attorneys, engineers, and other agents
or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in
connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Series 2009 Bonds for the
full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the
Series 2009 Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for any
reason the Mayor of the City is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other
acts provided herein, any persons delegated the duties of the Mayor shall be authorized to act in the
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
capacity of the Mayor and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City with full force and
effect, which execution or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. If for any reason the City
Manager of the City is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this Resolution,
such documents may be executed by any person delegated the duties of the City Manager, with the
same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the
City.
14. The City understands that the Obligated Group will pay directly or through the City
any and all costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with the transactions authorized by this
resolution, whether or not the Series 2009 Bonds are issued.
15. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b)Page 11
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b)Page 12
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 6b)Page 13
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Wooddale Pointe – Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 08-120 adopted on September
15, 2008 approving a 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 3601 Wooddale
Avenue South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 08-119 adopted on September
15, 2008 giving Approval for Final Plat of Wooddale Pointe with Easement Variances.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the major amendment to the PUD?
This request is consistent with the Elmwood Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study which
recommends a mix of uses in this area, including first floor commercial.
Please note that city code requires a 2/3 majority vote (5) of the entire Council to approve a major
amendment to a PUD. At this time two council members are expected to be absent from the 11/16
Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Zoning: Mixed-Use (MX)
Comprehensive Plan: Mixed-Use
Applicant: Greco Real Estate Development, LLC.
Description of Request:
The applicant is proposing to amend the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a five-
story, mixed-use, senior residential and commercial building. The amendment is to reduce the
building size and number of dwelling units from 156 to 115 together with changes to the site plan.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Location:
Approved PUD:
On September 15, 2008 the City approved a Final PUD for Wooddale Pointe consisting of a five
story, mixed use, senior residential housing complex located at the southeast corner of 36th Street
West and Wooddale Avenue South. The PUD was approved as a five story building with 156 senior
dwelling units on the second through fifth floors, and approximately 26,000 square feet of
commercial, dining and other uses on the ground floor. The change is requested primarily because
of the change in market conditions and financing.
The building is a senior “age in place” facility, meaning the residents can move into the complex at a
time in their life when they do not need additional services. However, services ranging from
monitoring medication to complete memory care may be added as their health requires. The
approved uses will not change as a result of the proposed amendment.
Proposed Changes:
The building in the approved PUD has a roughly “U” shaped footprint with a courtyard located
inside the “U”, and the open portion of the “U” facing south. The three segments of the building
are located along Wooddale Ave, 36th Street, and the east property line. The proposed amendment
removes the building segment located along the east property line leaving a “V” shaped building
running along Wooddale Ave and 36th Street. The building segment removed from the plan
contained two levels of structured parking (underground and the first floor), and four stories of
residential units above the ground floor structured parking.
The building is replaced with surface parking and the internal courtyard is reduced in size, but is still
a significant focal point and amenity for the residents.
SITE
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Zoning Analysis:
The proposed amendment meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Some exceptions are
allowed in the Mixed Use (MX) Zoning District and the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
* With allowed PUD reductions.
Residential Density:
There are 115 residential units proposed. Of these, 32 are memory care units, and as such, do not
meet the definition of dwelling units because the residents will be dependent upon staff for meals
and care. The remaining 82 senior living units meet the definition of dwelling units, in that a
kitchen is provided in each unit so they function as a separate dwelling unit. Therefore, for purposes
of determining compliance with the maximum allowed density, only the 82 dwelling units were
counted.
Parking:
The proposal is a mixed use development that includes reductions in parking. The PUD was
approved with a 14% reduction in parking, from 206 to 178. The amendment proposes a reduction
in parking from 156 required spaces to 147 proposed parking spaces (6%). The Mixed Use Zoning
District allows a maximum of 30% reduction.
Factor
Required by
Zoning Approved PUD
Proposed
Amendment Met?
Use Mixed-use Mixed-use Mixed-use Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres 2.13 acres 2.13 acres Yes
Density
50 units per acre
75 units per acre
(with conditions)
58 units per acre 38 units per acre Yes
Height N/A 64 feet 62 feet Yes
Parking See Parking Analysis
Below.
Required 216
Provided 178
Required 156
Provided 147 Yes*
Setbacks PUD modifications are requested – See analysis below. Yes
Non-Residential
Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.15 0.22 Yes
Ground Floor
Area Ratio N/A 0.60 0.43 Yes
Open Area/DORA 9,306 sf (12%) 20.478 sf (26%) 10,000 sf (13%) Yes
Transit service None required Limited bus & future light rail Yes
Stormwater Required city and
watershed standards
Regional storm water pond at Hoigaard
Village site Yes
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
The parking study previously submitted for the development was amended to account for the
proposed PUD amendment. The amended study shows that a total of 94 spaces are needed for the
proposed uses. The following table compares the study results, zoning requirements, and provided
spaces.
Land Use
Study
Estimate Zoning Requirement Spaces provided
Commercial 56 spaces
68 spaces
(61 spaces after 10% transit
reduction is applied)
62 off-street, surface spaces
Senior
Residential 38 spaces 88 spaces 69 underground spaces
16 on-street spaces
TOTAL 94 spaces 156 spaces (149 after 10%
transit reduction is applied) 147 spaces
The following tables compare the parking arrangement of the approved PUD to the proposed
parking arrangement in the amended PUD. The parking situation is improved in the proposed
amendment with a reduction of 6% instead of the previously approved 14%. The most significant
changes are resulting from the reduction in number of units from 156 to 115, an increase in
commercial spaces from 11,750 square feet to 17,000 square feet, and the creation of a coffee shop
parking formula in the zoning ordinance. (Parking requirements for coffee shops are now calculated
at one space per 200 sf. Prior to this change, the restaurant formula was applied at one space per 60
sf.) The table shows that the number of spaces required by zoning decreased by 50 spaces, and that
the number provided decreased by 37 spaces. Also of interest, the underground spaces are proposed
to decrease from 112 to 69, and the surface spaces are proposed to increase from 66 to 78.
Approved PUD Proposed Amendment
Required # of Spaces Required # of Spaces
32 memory care residential
units 6 33 memory care residential
units 6
124 senior units 124 82 senior units 82
Restaurant 2,300 sf
(Coffee shop) 38 Commercial (17,000 sf) 68
Commercial (9,450 sf) 38
Minimum Required
without reductions 206 Minimum Required
without reductions 156
Approved Reduction 14% Proposed Reduction 6%
Parking Spaces Provided 178 Parking Spaces Provided 147
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Streetscape & Plaza:
No changes are proposed to the approved streetscape. The developer will install the streetscape as
previously approved and as specified in the streetscape plan for 36th Street.
Architectural Style and Materials
The building design is the same as previously approved with the following exceptions:
1. The east parking and residential wing was removed and replaced with surface parking.
2. The canopy over the Wooddale Ave entrance extends across the sidewalk to the drop-off
space to provide better shelter.
3. The portion of the Wooddale/36th Street plaza closest to the entrance of the building will
step down approximately 1.5 feet. This change was required to provide better pedestrian
access to all commercial spaces along 36th Street. The step down plaza will also create an
interesting and defined gathering space/dining area on the plaza.
The applicant is pursuing a grocery store and coffee shop for the commercial space; however, these
uses have not been secured.
Public Art:
The public art will be installed as previously approved. The artist, Randy Walker, was awarded the
contract for creating the art to be located at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street.
The installation of Mr. Walker’s sculpture called “The Dream Elevator” will be coordinated with the
construction of Wooddale Pointe. Additional art by Marjorie Pitz will be installed along the entire
36th Street corridor between Wooddale Avenue and Highway 100.
Stormwater:
The stormwater will flow to the regional pond at Hoigaard Village. The developer will contribute
financially to the cost of the pond.
Planning Commission:
A Major Amendment to a PUD requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission. A
public hearing was conducted on October 21, 2009. Mr. Adeel Saad, owner of Luggage World
expressed concerns about parking and traffic. Staff and commissioners noted that as a result of the
amendment, there will be more surface parking available, and Wooddale Pointe will require less
parking than the currently approved plans. The Commission recommended approval (3-0) with two
Commissioners abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
Approved
PUD
Proposed
Amendment Change
Underground
Parking 112 69 Decrease of 43 spaces
Off-Street Parking 50 62 Increase of 12 spaces
On-Street Parking 16 16 No change
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed application is consistent with the community vision and the City Councils Strategic
Direction of providing for a “well maintained and diverse housing stock”.
Attachments: Resolution – Major Amendment to PUD
Resolution – Reaffirming Final Plat
Site plan
Color Elevation Rendering
Amended parking study
Amended traffic study
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
RESOLUTION NO.09-___
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 08-120
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION
NO. 08-120 ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 APPROVING A 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 3601
WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, Greco Real Estate, LLC has made application to the City Council for a major
amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code within the MX – Mixed Use Zoning District having the following legal
description:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 44, “St. Louis Park,” Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 44,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, Lot 6, Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park,
except that part lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park;
thence Westerly 110.00 feet along the North line of said Block 44 to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence Southerly at a right angle, to the
Southwesterly line of said Block 44 and there terminating.
That part of the North Half of the vacated alley between Block 1, “Collins Second
Addition to St. Louis Park” and Block 44, “St. Louis Park,” lying West of the
Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 1, Block 44, “St. Louis Park” and Easterly
of the Southeasterly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 11, block 44,
“Rearrangement of St. Louis Park.”
and
Block 1, COLLINS SECOND ADDITION TO ST. LOUIS PARK, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The portion of the alley lying Easterly of Wooddale Avenue between 36th and 37th
Streets for a distance of approximately 250 feet located in: Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, and
all of vacated alley and adjoining one half of Yosemite Avenue vacated, Block 1,
COLLINS SECOND ADDITION TO ST. LOUIS PARK
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No.
09-21-PUD and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants
of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of
properties in the surrounding area 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. 08-120 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September 15, 2008 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 08-120, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 09-21-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 08-120 (document not
filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final
Planned Unit Development to the subject property within the MX – Mixed Use Zoning District at
the location described above based on the following conditions:
A 14% reduction in the required parking.
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official
exhibits.
2. The following maximum and minimum requirements, as indicated in the official exhibits, shall
apply to the PUD:
a. A maximum of 156 115 residential units.
b. A minimum of 153 69 structured parking spaces.
c. A 14% 6% reduction from the required parking spaces to allow 178 147 parking spaces
instead of the required 206 156 parking spaces.
d. A minimum of 25 on-street parking spaces shall be provided.
3. Conditions for the approval of the Planned Unit Development, to be included in the
Development Agreement between the City and the Developer, are as follows:
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
a. Developer agrees to install, at its expense, street, on-street parking and streetscape
improvements along all public and private streets and access drives subject to final streetscape
designs, Final PUD approval and City approval of detailed construction drawings.
b. Developer agrees to enter into a special service district for the continued maintenance of the
streetscape along 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue.
c. Developer agrees to enter into a snow-removal agreement with the City to ensure all snow is
removed from Yosemite Avenue and 37th Street West.
d. Developer agrees to contribute $100,000 toward the construction of the regional storm
water pond located at Hoigaard Village.
e. Developer agrees to contribute financially toward the public art to be located in the plaza
area at the corner of Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street West. The amount will be finalized
upon receipt of the final cost estimates of the public art and streetscape plans. The
contribution amount will be included in the development agreement.
f. All deliveries made at Yosemite Avenue shall be made and concluded prior to 9 am.
Deliveries lasting less than 15 minutes may be made utilize on-street parking bays.
g. All trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside the building.
h. No more than 60 The underground parking spaces shall be restricted to residents, guests,
and employees of the residence. The remaining structured and surface parking shall be
available for public parking.
i. Developer agrees to place any on-site utilities underground.
4. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor, non-residential
facades located in the Mixed-Use building facing West 36th Street:
a. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following requirements:
i. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass
block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including
window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be
clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior.
ii. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum of three feet. This
requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be
used to meet the transparency requirement.
b. Awnings.
i. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and
vinyl awnings are prohibited.
ii. Backlit awnings are prohibited.
c. Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a maximum of
five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided a 6 foot minimum
horizontal clearance along West 36th Street is maintained between obstructions on the
private and public sidewalks and provided that all activity is occurring on private property:
i. Display of merchandise.
ii. Benches, planters, ornaments and art.
iii. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance.
iv. Dining areas may extend beyond the five foot maximum, provided an 8 foot minimum
horizontal clearance along West 36th Street is maintained between the obstructions on
the sidewalk.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
d. All wall vents and assorted fixtures shall be painted to match the color of the wall they are
attached to.
5. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Proof of Recording the Final Plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. A site plan showing the required fire lanes shall be submitted.
c. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted.
d. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner.
e. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development, construction
and city representatives.
f. A staging plan for construction shall be filed with the City.
g. All necessary permits must be obtained.
6. 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.
7. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
8. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 08-119
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 08-119 ADOPTED
SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF
WOODDALE POINTE WITH EASEMENT VARIANCES
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Greco Real Estate Development, LLC, and Rottlund Homes, owners and subdividers
of the land proposed to be platted as Wooddale Pointe have submitted an application for approval of
final plat of said subdivision with variances to reduce the size of required drainage and utility
easements (Section 26-154) in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City
Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances
of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 44, “St. Louis Park,” Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 44,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, Lot 6, Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park,
except that part lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park;
thence Westerly 110.00 feet along the North line of said Block 44 to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence Southerly at a right angle, to the
Southwesterly line of said Block 44 and there terminating.
That part of the North Half of the vacated alley between Block 1, “Collins Second
Addition to St. Louis Park” and Block 44, “St. Louis Park,” lying West of the
Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 1, Block 44, “St. Louis Park” and Easterly
of the Southeasterly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 11, block 44,
“Rearrangement of St. Louis Park.”
AND
Block 1, COLLINS SECOND ADDITION TO ST. LOUIS PARK, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
The portion of the alley lying Easterly of Wooddale Avenue between 36th and 37th
Streets for a distance of approximately 250 feet located in: Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, and
all of vacated alley and adjoining one half of Yosemite Avenue vacated, Block 1,
COLLINS SECOND ADDITION TO ST. LOUIS PARK
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict application of the
provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of
the land. Such circumstances arise due to the property’s physical shape, and topographical layout.
5. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The granting of the
variance will enable a building to be constructed that is consistent in design and scale with other
buildings constructed along 36th Street.
6. The variances are to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship. The
irregular shape of the lot limits where the building and parking areas can be located.
7. The variances are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain elements, such as
underground parking, and buildings that are located along the street right-of-way. Such
redevelopment could not occur without a variance.
8. A Final Plat was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-119
of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September 15, 2008 which contained conditions applicable
to said property; and
9. Due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary,
requiring the amendment of that Final Plat; and
10. It is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted
by Resolution No. 08-119, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions
applicable to the subject property in this resolution.
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Wooddale Pointe is hereby approved and accepted by the
City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of
St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
a. Variances are approved from the subdivision ordinance to eliminate the drainage
and utility easements required by section 26-154 of the Subdivision Ordinance
along 36th Street West, Wooddale Ave South and Yosemite Ave, except for the
north end of Yosemite Ave, where a five foot deep by 26 foot long utility easement
will be required. Provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the
opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
b. Condominium association papers must be approved by the City Attorney.
c. A $1,000 cash escrow be submitted to guarantee the city receives a fully executed
mylar copy of the final plat.
d. Park dedication of $108,800 82,945 be paid prior to the city signing the final plat.
e. Trail dedication of $24,900 18,675 be paid prior to the city signing the final plat
2. The Final Plat shall be amended on November 16, 2009 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The deadline for recording the final plat shall be automatically extended to
December 31, 2011.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to
the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required
herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the
City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
5. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under
Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper
compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and
shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this
approval.
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 November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Memorandum
1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359
Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242
To: Brent Rogers, Greco LLC
Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects
From: Ed Terhaar, P.E.
Date: October 1, 2009
Subject: Updated Parking Analysis for Wooddale Pointe Development
Wenck # 0939-27
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine whether the proposed Wooddale Pointe development will
provide adequate parking supply to effectively meet expected demand. Our review dated July 7, 2008 has
been updated to account for changes in the development characteristics.
The proposed development consists of the following uses:
• 115 residential dwelling units for senior citizens, divided as follows: 6 care suites, 33 memory
care units, 74 assisted/independent living units, and 2 guest suites.
• 8,000 SF (square feet) grocery store
• 7,000 SF specialty retail space
Our parking analysis was based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE)
Parking Generation, Third Edition, 2004 and guidance presented in the Eno Foundation’s Parking, 1990.
PARKING ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The first step in our analysis was to determine the expected parking demand for the proposed development.
Using data presented in the ITE Parking Generation, we determined parking demand for all uses within the
proposed development. Results from the parking demand calculations are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Peak Parking Demand Calculations for Proposed Wooddale Pointe Development
Use (land use code) Size Unit Parking Demand No. of Spaces
Residential1 (254) 115 DU 0.33 vehicles per unit 38
Grocery store (850) 8,000 SF 4.36 vehicles per 1,000 sf 35
Specialty retail (820) 7,000 SF 3.02 vehicles per 1,000 sf 21
TOTAL DEMAND 94
DU – dwelling unit, SF – square feet
1 For residential uses, we used data for land use code 254 (Assisted Living). The ITE Parking Generation describes this use as
“…residential settings that provide either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for
independent living to mentally or physically limited people.” Overall, the description for “Assisted Living” land use fits
accurately with the proposed residential uses in the Wooddale Pointe development.
Memorandum to Brent Rogers and Link Wilson
Subject: Updated Parking Analysis for Wooddale Pointe Development
Page 2 of 2
October 1, 2009
As presented in Table 1, the total peak parking demand for the proposed development is 94 spaces. Based
on information presented in the Eno Foundation’s Parking, parking supply should be 10 percent greater
than the expected parking demand. The 10 percent reserve capacity is “…needed to allow for cruising
vehicles in search of a space, vehicles unparking, and for peak surges.” Thus, the total parking supply
needed for the proposed development is 104 (94 x 1.1).
The current site plan for the proposed development provides a total of 141 parking spaces. This total
consists of 72 surface stalls, which includes 56 off-street and 16 on-street spaces, and 69 underground
stalls. Thus, the current plan for the proposed development will provide adequate parking supply to
effectively meet expected demand.
Memorandum
1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359
Phone: 763-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242
To: Brent Rogers, Greco LLC
Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects
From: Ed Terhaar, P.E.
Date: October 1, 2009
Subject: Updated Traffic Review for Proposed Wooddale Pointe Development in St. Louis Park
Wenck # 0939-27
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the updated results of our traffic review for the proposed
Wooddale Pointe development in the City of St. Louis Park. Our review dated July 7, 2008 has been
updated to account for changes in the development characteristics.
The subject site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Wooddale Avenue S/36th Street W intersection.
Our traffic review was to complete trip generation estimates for the proposed development and determine
the associated changes in traffic volumes on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street in the vicinity of the site.
The proposed development consists of the following uses:
• 115 residential dwelling units for senior citizens, divided as follows: 6 care suites, 33 memory
care units, 74 assisted/independent living units, and 2 guest suites.
• 8,000 SF (square feet) grocery store
• 7,000 SF specialty retail space
Access for the proposed development will be provided both via 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON WOODDALE AVENUE AND 36TH STREET
To effectively address the percentage change in volumes that will be caused by the proposed development
on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street, it is necessary to establish background traffic volumes for these two
streets. For this purpose, we obtained the memorandum report titled “Final Design of Wooddale Avenue
and 36th Street Streetscaping Traffic Operations Analysis and Concept Layouts” that was completed by
the SRF firm for the City of St. Louis Park on February 29, 2008.
The SRF memorandum presents a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at multiple intersections along
Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street in the vicinity of the site for 2008, 2012, and 2030 conditions. For the
purpose of this traffic review, we used the 2012 traffic forecasts since this scenario represents conditions
near the expected completion date of the Wooddale Pointe development. We established two locations
each on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street for comparing volumes due to Wooddale Pointe to 2012
background volumes from the SRF report. Table 1 shows these four locations and background volumes
at each location for the 2012 conditions based on forecasts presented in the SRF report.
Memorandum to Brent Rogers and Link Wilson
Subject: Updated Traffic Review for Proposed Wooddale Pointe Development
Page 2 of 3
October 1, 2009
Table 1
2012 Background Traffic Volumes on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street
Total Two-Way Traffic Volume Location A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily1
Wooddale Avenue just south of 36th Street 790 905 9,050
Wooddale Avenue just west of Highway 100 780 885 8,850
36th Street just east of Wooddale Avenue 1,035 1,520 15,200
36th Street just west of Highway 100 1,010 1,440 14,400
INCREASE IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON WOODDALE AVENUE AND 36TH STREET DUE TO
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
To determine the increase in traffic volumes at the locations identified in Table 1 due to the proposed
development, we first completed trip generation estimates. Our trip generation estimates were based on
the characteristics of the proposed uses and data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
(ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, which is the current industry standard for developing gross trip
generation. In addition to using the data in this document, we also used data presented in the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, Second Edition, which presents data and guidance on internal and passby trips.
Internal trips are trips that will occur between two uses that are within the proposed development and
thus, will not use the surrounding roadway network. Passby trips are trips that are already on Wooddale
Avenue and 36th Street that will include a stop at the subject development in the future. Applying
appropriate adjustments to the gross trips to account for internal and passby trips, we calculated the
number of net new trips that will use the surrounding roadway network. The internal trip reductions were
based on expected activity for each use and the passby trips are based on data presented in the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook. The following percentages were used for internal and passby trips for each of the
proposed uses:
• Residential – No internal or passby trip reductions.
• Grocery store – 15 percent reduction for internal trips and 30 percent reduction for passby trips.
• Specialty retail – 15 percent reduction for internal trips and 30 percent reduction for passby trips.
Table 2 presents net new trip generation for the proposed development.
Table 2
Net New Trip Generation for Proposed Wooddale Pointe Development
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Use (land use code) Size Unit In Out Total In Out Total
Daily
Total
Residential (255) 115 DU 13 8 21 16 17 33 323
Grocery store (850) 8,000 SF 10 7 17 26 24 50 487
Specialty retail (820) 7,000 SF 2 2 4 8 8 16 179
TOTAL 25 17 42 50 49 99 989
DU – dwelling unit, SF – square feet
1 Daily volumes were estimated based on the “rule of thumb” guideline that p.m. peak hour volume is approximately 10
percent of the daily volume.
Memorandum to Brent Rogers and Link Wilson
Subject: Updated Traffic Review for Proposed Wooddale Pointe Development
Page 3 of 3
October 1, 2009
To determine the traffic volume that the proposed development will add to Wooddale Avenue and 36th
Street at the subject locations, the trips presented in Table 2 should be assigned to the surrounding
roadway network. The trip assignment is based on expected travel patterns for the proposed
development, which are described below:
• Driveway on 36th Street
o Trips to/from the east on 36th Street
o Trips to/from the west on 36th Street
o Trips to/from the north on Wooddale Avenue
o Trips to/from the south on Wooddale Avenue
• Driveway on Wooddale Avenue2
o Trips to/from the north on Wooddale Avenue
o Trips to/from the south on Wooddale Avenue
o Trips to/from the west on 36th Street
The net new trips presented in Table 2 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network based on
expected trip distribution for each of the above travel patterns. Table 3 presents the resultant
development volumes on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street at the subject locations:
Table 3
Volumes due to Proposed Development on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street
Two-Way Traffic Volume (Associated Percent
Increase Relative to 2012 Background Volume)3 Location
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily
Wooddale Avenue just south of 36th Street 2 (0.3%) 5 (0.6%) 49 (0.5%)
Wooddale Avenue just west of Highway 100 15 (1.9%) 35 (4.0%) 346 (3.9%)
36th Street just east of Wooddale Avenue 10 (1.0%) 24 (1.6%) 237 (1.6%)
36th Street just west of Highway 100 17 (1.7%) 40 (2.8%) 396 (2.8%)
Based on the results presented in Table 3, the proposed development will cause no perceptible changes in
traffic volumes on Wooddale Avenue or 36th Street.
2 All trips to/from the east on 36th Street are expected to use the access on 36th Street.
3 Traffic volume shown is total volume for both directions at the subject location.
Draft Minutes – Subject to Review
Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
October 21, 2009
B. Amendment to Planned Unit Development – Wooddale Pointe
Location: 3601 Wooddale Avenue South
Applicant: Greco Real Estate Development, LLC
Case No.: 09-21-PUD
Commissioner Shapiro excused himself from the hearing due to a potential conflict
of interest.
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Carper asked Mr. Morrison for clarification of the parking numbers.
Mr. Morrison responded that 147 parking spaces would be provided, a 10%
reduction of the requirements.
Vice Chair Person noted the proximity to the LRT Station might be considered in
the transit reduction of parking spaces. He asked if there were any marked bike lanes
on either 36th or Wooddale.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, replied no there were not. Mr.
Morrison added the regional bike trail is one block to the north.
Commissioner Carper asked with the building being proposed to be removed from
the original plan, was there an opportunity that there might be a reapplication for an
additional building some point in the future.
Ms. McMonigal noted that was a question for the architect when the applicant
addressed the Commission.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if that would then increase the need for
underground parking.
Mr. Morrison replied any proposal to amend the Planned Unit Development would
have to address parking needs. Needs could be met by building the underground
parking as proposed or surface parking. It could also be met if at the time there is a
parking ramp, but that was in the future.
Brent Rogers, Greco Real Estate, noted they were before the Commission last fall to
get PUD approved and the realities of the market situation caused them to come
back and reevaluate and bring forth a proposal for a project that was feasible today.
It slightly reduced the size of the project, but made it a project that was financeable
and could move forward.
Link Wilson, architect, stated an addition would not be practical.
Commissioner Morris asked if they have a primary commercial tenant at this time.
Mr. Rogers responded that they do not have a primary commercial tenant at this
time.
Commissioner Morris recalled the original plan included a street level café or coffee shop and
there were some indoor hair salons and other amenities for the occupants. He asked if
amenities were for the occupants or the neighborhood.
Mr. Rogers said many of the common areas can be made available to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked when they would start the project.
Mr. Rogers replied they would start in the spring.
Vice Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Adeel Saad, 5727 W. 36th St, expressed concerns about parking, including parking in
front of Luggage World.
Mr. Morrison replied parking included spaces along Wooddale, 36th St., and the west
side of the site. Parking had always been kept separate from Luggage World.
Mr. Saad stated the other issue he had was the address of the site, saying the entrance
to the site is on 36th.
Mr. Morrison responded the primary entrance to the residential portion would be off
of Wooddale. There is an entrance in the back as well. The address could be
changed. People could enter at a few locations.
Commissioner Ford stated coming from South 100 to 36th Street, it goes up Wooddale.
Half of the people coming from Hwy. 100 would go to the entrance at the south corner
of property.
Mr. Morrison stated the entrances were easily accessible.
Mr. Saad pointed out when he addressed the Commission at the last meeting, the
discussion was that the developer should meet with Luggage World. He only had
received the notice for this meeting and hadn’t seen any plans. No one has met with
him or contacted him. It is a small area and he felt it would be a dangerous entrance.
He didn’t have an objection to have a nice building, but he thought the entrance
would be a concern and would take his parking lot away. Mr. Saad said he is the
only neighbor and the only one who would be affected. He said he objected to this
plan.
Vice Chair Person asked if the entrance to his building was off of Yosemite Avenue.
Mr. Saad replied it was off 36th. He said Yosemite in that section does not exist and
is only a parking lot. It doesn’t exist on the south side of 36th, it is a little road with a
small parking lot.
Ms. McMonigal stated the Luggage World building is to the east and the parking he
was referring to was right up against the building. It was not a private parking lot
and it would remain. The situation is much better with this proposal and with less
building on the property, it would ease up the overall parking situation. Staff feels
better about the parking situation, which would help Luggage World and the entire
area. There is more surface parking and it is more visible. Staff felt it was a better
situation all around and would reduce the pressure in the entire area.
Commissioner Carper asked if Yosemite functioned as a two way street.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, it met the standards for a parking lot, a drive aisle and the
parking spaces. The parking spaces extend a little bit onto private property on each
site, but there is enough space to maintain what is there today.
Commissioner Morris said he recalled in previous meetings that there was a
commitment made that customers of Luggage World or any other area that had a
parking need, those parking spaces were not dedicated to employees or residents or
business owners. It was to be an open parking area. He asked if the developer
embracing that general concept.
Ms. McMonigal responded that staff couldn’t put that requirement on a private
parking lot. All of the spaces on Yosemite, probably over 20 spaces, were on public
right of way and were open for all of the uses. The developer and the current owner
have indicated they would be alright with others parking there, she didn’t think they
could tie a property owner or future property owner to an agreement or commitment
like that.
Vice Chair Person closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper noted he realized he had a conflict of interest and would
abstain from voting.
Commissioner Morris reiterated that the site had been before the Commission
almost two years ago and this was now a reduction in density. He recalled their
major concerns at the time it was first proposed was the density and ability to
accommodate the parking and traffic. These were reductions they would have
wanted earlier. He thought this was a better plan.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she felt this was a good project and she
supported it.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Major
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions recommended
by staff.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 3-0-2 (Carper and Shapiro abstained).
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Galaxy Drive-In – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000 to the year
2020 for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 to amend the
map for 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S. and 3712 Quebec Ave. S. from Low Density Residential to
Commercial, and approve summary for publication.
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance rezoning property at 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S. and
3712 Quebec Ave. S. from R-2 Single Family Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, and
set second reading for December 7, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning?
The Planning Commission recommended approval of both items. The current application relates
only to land use; however, a preliminary review of zoning issues associated with future applications is
included in the analysis.
Please note that state statute requires a 2/3 majority vote (5) of the entire Council to approve a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. At this time two council members have indicated they will be
absent from the 11/16 meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Requested are amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map from
residential to commercial for the Galaxy Drive-In. The request is for two parcels, including the
parcel Galaxy Drive-In is located on and the adjacent lot to the west along the Highway 7 frontage
road. The adjacent lot currently contains a single family home. The applicant is seeking to remove
the home, build a new 22 car parking area on it, and potentially add some indoor seating to the
existing building.
Currently, the properties are designated for “Low Density Residential” in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and are zoned “R-2 – Single Family Residential.” The request is to change both parcels to
“Commercial” on the Comprehensive Land Use map and rezone them to “C-1 - Neighborhood
Commercial.” If these land use requests are approved, a Conditional Use Permit for in-vehicle
service and a Plat to combine the two parcels would be required.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Site Background:
The parcel at 3712 Quebec Avenue South has been a drive-in style restaurant since 1951. A Zoning
Map dated 1949 on file with the City shows the site as a residential parcel; it is unknown what sort
of approval was originally granted to permit the construction of a restaurant. At an earlier time, the
site likely had direct access to Highway 7.
The restaurant continues to operate today as a “legally non-conforming use.” This means it can
continue operating, however it cannot be expanded. It may be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed by
fire or other peril under certain conditions. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than
one year, the right to continue the use is
terminated.
When the applicant purchased the site in 2008,
the restaurant facility was brought up to date,
restrooms were installed per City Code and,
parking improvements were made to eliminate
illegal parking. Following the improvements,
business at the site increased substantially.
Acknowledging this, the applicant proposed the
purchase of the adjacent residential property to
use for parking. Staff advised the applicant of the
regulatory process, which would involve changing
the land use on the site to “Commercial” in the
Comprehensive Plan, changing the zoning to “C-
1,” obtaining a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
and combining the two properties into one.
Further analysis of parking issues, the number of
seats available to restaurant patrons, landscaping
and stormwater management would be included
as part of the CUP application.
Site Conditions:
Site updates in 2008 and early 2009 led to improvements in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
and the Building Code, (reconstruction of the parking lot and handicapped accessible restrooms).
Prior to these improvements parking sometimes took place randomly on site, occasionally on the
grass or other areas of the site where parking is not permitted, and there were no publically accessibly
restrooms available.
Comprehensive Plan:
A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the
perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s
long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes
strong neighborhoods.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for a currently existing use. The Galaxy’s
owner wishes to create new off-street parking and potentially indoor seating.
Although the site is currently used for commercial purposes, it is designated for low density
residential in the Comprehensive Plan. If this use was discontinued, it would not be possible to use
the site for another commercial activity under the current zoning (R2). The zoning designation
follows the Comprehensive Plan, which classifies the site as Low Density Residential. The zoning is
supposed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would change the parcel to
commercial and the parcel could then be utilized for another commercial use with a Comprehensive
Plan and zoning designation of Commercial. Even if the Galaxy Drive-in were to cease operations,
the parcel could continue to be used for any uses allowed in the specified commercial Zoning
District.
Does this request fit into the guidelines of the updated Land Use Plan?
The City’s land use plan is built from the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies
incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested
change.
The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets several of the principles found in the
Land Use chapter of the updated Comprehensive Plan, including:
− walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods
− accessible to the neighborhood
− human scale development
− neighborhood commercial scale
− unique community and neighborhood identity
− retain a local landmark and long time unique neighborhood use
Despite being a “drive-in,” neighbors have cited the ability to walk to the restaurant as an important
amenity for their neighborhood. This is consistent with the first principle.
The loss of one single-family house, while not desirable, could help the neighborhood by creating of
additional parking for the existing drive-in. There is no guarantee, of course, that adding off-street
parking will completely or permanently solve the off-street parking problem.
By changing the land use designation of these parcels, a “neighborhood commercial node” is created.
The commercial node is similar in character to others found adjacent to neighborhoods along
Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue. A characteristic of these nodes is a lack of available
off-street parking. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for further study of these nodes, it also states
that “…having some commercial establishments within walking distance from a neighborhood is
thought to…foster neighborhood identity, and provide opportunities for connections.” The
proposed land use change accomplishes these goals.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
A significant negative impact of commercial activity on this site is the potential traffic, parking,
lighting, odors, trash and general level of activity that can accompany commercial land uses. This is
especially true of retail uses like restaurants. It should be noted that there is an existing traffic and
congestion problem with the current use. The proposed change in land use designation and
expansion of the Galaxy Drive-In site is in part an attempt to address the existing parking problem.
How does the proposed amendment impact surrounding properties?
A land use amendment would designate this area commercial and allow rezoning for commercial
uses in this location. “Commercial” as a category in the Comprehensive Plan relates to the C-1
(neighborhood) and C-2 (general) commercial zoning districts. As this site is adjacent to a single
family neighborhood, the most appropriate zoning category would be C-1, which provides
performance standards relating to contiguous residential uses.
A question in evaluating an amendment is whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for the
long term. The immediate expectation is that new off-street parking would be constructed to
decrease the amount of on-street parking now occurring.
Does the proposed amendment impact the physical character of the neighborhood?
The amendment would result in the loss of one single family dwelling, however the intended effect
of this is to reduce on-street parking and thereby reduce the negative effects of this use on the
neighborhood and improve the physical character of the neighborhood.
The drive-in restaurant as an existing commercial use would not change substantially; the change
would be primarily to the adjacent single family site. It is at the edge of the neighborhood, and faces
a regional highway – a less than ideal location for a single family home. The highway exposure
makes commercial activity possible. Commercial use can serve as a buffer from the highway,
however it brings with it its own risks of impacts, including traffic, parking, etc.
The commercial land use designation and zoning would mean that commercial uses other than a
drive-in restaurant would be permitted. The size of the site and the performance standards found in
the Zoning Ordinance help to address potential negative impacts associated with commercial
development adjacent to residential uses. Standards in the zoning ordinance regulate design
characteristics such as height, building location, and building material use.
Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing uses?
It is expected this amendment would improve the transition between land uses on the existing
Galaxy Drive-In parcel by enabling the City to require a greater level of landscape buffer through the
Conditional Use Permit process. The parcel to the west, which would be converted to a parking lot,
would more immediately impact the residential properties to the south. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a substantial buffer between a parking lot and a single family dwelling; however, attention to
the buffer area will be important to ensure that the transition between the existing and proposed
land uses is not degraded. This subject would be reviewed as a part of a CUP.
Commercial use along Highway 7 does provide some buffer and transition from the traffic and noise
of Highway 7 itself and the single family homes in the Oak Hill neighborhood.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
What input was provided from the neighborhood?
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 13, 2009, to review the proposal with
adjacent property owners. Approximately 30 citizens attended the meeting. Most of the concerns
voiced at the meeting involved on-street parking, traffic, and other operational issues related to the
drive-in.
The proposed land use change would enable the continuation of an existing commercial business.
The continuation of the drive-in use presents an opportunity to support a long-term neighborhood
gathering space, also cited as a priority in the neighborhood planning process.
A number of neighboring property owners spoke both in favor and in opposition to the proposed
amendments at the Planning Commission public hearing. The draft minutes from the October 21st
Planning Commission meeting are attached for review. As noted, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the amendments on a vote of 3-2, with two Commissioners absent.
Zoning:
It is proposed that the property be rezoned from R2 – Single Family Residential to C1 –
Neighborhood Commercial. The table below compares the uses allowed in the R2 and C1 districts.
The second table compares some of the standard performance standards for the R2 and C1 districts.
The front yard for the affected parcels faces the frontage road and Highway 7. The rear yard is
adjacent to the residential properties to the south. Both side yards for the property would abut
streets; one along Rhode Island and the other along Quebec.
R2 Low-Density Residential Allowed in both districts C1 Neighborhood Commercial
Single family dwellings Libraries Adult day care
State-license group home Police/fire station Museums
Group home/non-statutory Parks/recreation Banks
Community Center Transit station Indoor animal boarding
Bed and breakfast establishment Group day care Food service
Cluster housing Public service structure Restaurants
Religious institutions Educational Printing process
Communication towers (45’
max height)
Indoor entertainment - privately
owned (ex. – health club)
Service uses
Studios
In-vehicle sales (drive-in)
Limited impact SOBs
Parking lot
Office
Medical/dental office
Retail
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Zoning Uses
An amendment to the Zoning Map is required to move forward with the applicant’s plan to expand
the off-street parking area available to customers. There is currently a substantial amount of on-
street parking that
occurs during peak
times. The new parking
area would add 22
parking spaces,
reducing the parking
demand on adjacent
streets. A zoning change
is required because the
Zoning Ordinance
prohibits the construction of a parking lot as a principal use on a parcel designated R2
Single Family Residential. To fully bring the site into compliance, the applicant must also apply for
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a plat. The CUP will address zoning regulations related to in-
vehicle sales, and other site items. The plat would combine the existing restaurant parcel with the
adjacent parcel immediately to the west along the frontage road.
What are the potential impacts to the
neighborhood due to the zoning change?
The zoning change has the potential to lessen
the traffic and parking impacts of the existing
drive-in restaurant on the surrounding
neighborhood. However, because the drive-in
may not be in business forever, it is important
to review what other impacts may arise as a
result of the zoning change. The performance
standards of the C-1 district generally ensure
that any other commercial development on
the site would conform to neighborhood
standards; the site would not accommodate a
large office building or large restaurant.
Architectural, landscaping and parking
standards ensure that any future
redevelopment on the site would be of high-
quality and minimal visual impact. Access to
the site is via the Highway 7 frontage road;
because of good access via the frontage road
west to Texas Avenue and east to Louisiana
Avenue, traffic congestion within the
neighborhood is unlikely.
Performance Standards R2 C1
Height 30 feet 35 feet
Setbacks
Front 25 feet 5 feet
Side (abutting street) 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 25 feet 20 feet
On-site Parking Setbacks Non-conforming, vary 5 feet, screening
required
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Off-street parking is a major concern. The proposed zoning change allows for the addition of off-
street parking for the current use. Were the site to redevelop, any new use would have to fully meet
the zoning requirements for off-street parking. This would mean that the size of any new
development on this site would be limited by the amount of off-street parking that could be
provided.
Preliminary Zoning Review
The applicant plans to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if approval is granted for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning. The CUP, for a drive-in restaurant without
liquor, would bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. There are three
primary issues associated with zoning compliance for the property: setbacks, landscaping, and off-
street parking. The existing structure appears to meet zoning standards such as lot coverage and
height; other standards, such as building materials requirements, would require further information
from the applicant before review could begin.
Setbacks
The existing drive-in restaurant is located in the center of the parcel. Setback requirements for the
C-1 District would be met as follows:
In addition to the requirements for building setbacks, the property is also subject to C-1 District
requirements for parking setbacks. In the C-1 District, parking is allowed in the front yard or side
yard abutting a street if a minimum setback of 5’ is maintained from all property lines adjacent to
residential properties. It is expected that the applicant will provide a setback in excess of 5’ to meet
the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Landscaping
The redevelopment of the drive-in at 3715 Quebec Ave. S. resulted in substantial changes to the site
design and included some new landscaping and the installation of art pieces surrounding the site.
Staff will review the existing and proposed landscaping as part of the CUP. Because there is a small
building footprint, the landscaping requirement will likely be based on the site’s perimeter. The
perimeter of the site is slightly less than 800 lineal feet, resulting in a landscaping requirement for 16
trees and 96 shrubs. It is expected that there is adequate green space on the site to allow for the
installation of the required landscaping.
Parking
The off-street parking requirement for restaurants found in the Zoning Ordinance is based on the
total gross square footage of a given building. In this case, because the property is a drive-in
location, the gross square footage does not accurately represent the total number of patrons at the
site at a given time. Instead, Staff must review the number of seats available at the restaurant. Based
Yard Type Setback Requirement Setback Proposed
Front yard (Frontage Road) 5’ 20’
Side yard (Quebec Ave. S.) 15’ 35’
Side yard (Rhode Island Ave. S.) 15’ > 50’
Rear yard 20’ 40’
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s “Parking Generation” manual, peak parking
demand for this type of use is 0.33 vehicles per seat – or one parking space per three seats.
There are a total of 15 existing off-street parking spaces on the site. The proposed parking expansion
would allow for the construction of 22 more spaces, bringing the total to 37 spaces. Based on the
total number of off-street spaces, the maximum number of seats on-site would be limited to 111.
However, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the use of on-street parking if available directly adjacent
to the site. The applicant could potentially count some on-street parking – but not to the extent it is
currently being used. To improve safety, no on-street parking within 30 feet of the intersection can
be counted. Allowing for one car per 30 lineal feet of available frontage, the applicant could count
up to 13 available on-street parking spaces, bringing the total to 50 spaces. This would allow for a
maximum of 150 seats at the restaurant.
Summary
Further analysis of zoning issues will be required upon application for a CUP. However, based on
the preliminary analysis, it appears that the drive-in restaurant will be able to successfully comply
with the aspects of the site plan reviewed above.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Galaxy Drive-In services as a neighborhood gathering place; through an expansion of its parking
area, it will continue to serve as a key contact area where people in the neighborhood can meet and
interact.
Attachments: Resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Summary resolution for publication
Ordinance approving a Rezoning for 3712 Quebec and 3715 Rhode Island
Draft Minutes: Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 2009
Location Map
Draft Site Plan
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
3715 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE SOUTH
3712 QUEBEC AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on May
17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial,
and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting
conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting,
and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests
of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public
interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development
and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations
into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby
bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of
adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are
consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption
of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on October 21, 2009, based on statutes,
the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of
citizens and public agencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 09-22-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 09-22-CP are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from Low Density
Residential to Commercial.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council November 16, 2009
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
RESOLUTION NO.09-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
3715 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE SOUTH
3712 QUEBEC AVENUE SOUTH
This resolution states that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 3715 Rhode Island
Avenue South and 3712 Quebec Avenue South will be changed from Low Density Residential to
Commercial.
Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 26, 2009
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3715 Rhode Island Avenue South
3712 Quebec Avenue South
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 09-23-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing
the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land
use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as
hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Lot 5, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated and Lots 6 to 9,
including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block 319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and
Lots 42 to 45, except State Highway 7 and including adjoining half of alley vacated, Block
319, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
from R-2 Single Family Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 09-23-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of
associated Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Draft Minutes – Subject to Review
Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
October 21, 2009
3. Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning – Galaxy Drive-In
Location: 3715 Rhode Island Avenue South and 3712 Quebec Avenue South
Applicant: Genendra Chandra Roy, Sandhya Mallick, and J.S. Holdings LLC
Case No.: 09-22-CP and 09-23-Z
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that if the requests are
approved, the applicant would need to apply for a plat and a conditional use permit for a
drive-in use. The commercial use is legally non-conforming and this would make it a legal
use that could be altered for some other commercial activity.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Fulton discussed the surrounding area uses and zoning. Mr.
Fulton commented that the thing that had changed for this area over time was as Highway 7
had developed and changed, access to Highway 7 had also changed. He said one of the
reasons staff made a recommendation of approval for the requests was because the access was
predominantly off of the frontage road and not off of a neighborhood residential street.
Steve Schussler, applicant, stated he took over Wagoner’s Drive-in, which was a
neighborhood icon. He hoped to make significant changes for the neighborhood. He had
put in over $1,000,000 of upgrades on the site. He said there are neighbors who are not
happy with the parking problems. He stated that he has agreed to install substantial
plantings.
Jeff Bornmann, applicant, reviewed comments from the neighborhood meeting. One of the
major concerns was traffic, a problem they were working to solve. Other issues were signs
for no-parking and no u-turns. They were also working to come up with a solution for
screening. Trees and fences will buffer. Mr. Bornmann said they will work with the
neighbors on screening the back wall. At the front property line, they could shift the fence
forward.
Commissioner Shapiro asked about overflow parking and asked how many people were
parking on the residential street.
Mr. Schussler responded it was hard to determine. At the neighborhood meeting, one of the
suggestions brought up by neighbors was that employees be allowed to park on the street.
He said employees parking on the street for 4-5 hours were a problem. Another issue was
the screening problem adjacent to the house they were proposing to purchase. The City
said it would work with them in applying rules and regulations that would allow them to
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
make this site pretty, green, safe and make certain the neighborhood was happy with the
appearance and look. Mr. Schussler said they had already made a large investment, and will
do more to keep everyone happy.
Vice Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Joyce Saabye, 3719 Rhode Island, stated she would be next door to the parking lot. She said
the Galaxy is a very nice place, but she was unsure if she wanted to live next door to a
parking lot. The neighbors now have a sound barrier with the house, garage and trees. They
expect parking lot noise until 10 or 11 PM. Before this came about, she made
improvements to her home and planned on more improvements. She said she was
concerned about how property values would be affected living next to a commercial site. She
asked if there were plans for the drainage as there would be more black top and it would
affect her property. She asked what would happen if a new owner took over Galaxy and
would it be kept up.
Commissioner Carper asked if Ms. Saabye was absolutely opposed to this or did she feel
something could be done to the lot that might be acceptable.
Ms. Saabye replied it might be acceptable. She added they would like to have a sound
barrier along Highway 7, but couldn’t get one because of the drive-in being there.
Commissioner Person asked if the proposed fence and buffering would be adequate.
Ms. Saabye replied the fence should be higher than normal and serve as a sound barrier. She
said the bedroom windows were about six and half feet from the lot line.
Gerald Coleman, 3719 Quebec, indicated as they watched the progressions from Wagoner,
they were concerned about the traffic, but knew it was only for a certain period of time.
They had worked with Steve Schussler and Jeff Bornmann and their concerns were taken to
heart. He said they have had a positive experience with Galaxy.
Gay Neitzel, 3719 Quebec, indicated she had lived there all of her life and the drive-in had
been there forever. The parking had been a challenge. She felt Mr. Schussler would do what
he could to have a sound barrier, and it would be much needed. All neighbors lost street
parking. She supported the proposed changes as long as the applicant could satisfy the
neighbor in the back. She said Galaxy was a great improvement.
Bill Schwirtz, 3715 Quebec, said he lives directly across from the drive-in. The traffic has
greatly increased with the new drive-in. Mr. Schussler has done everything he promised to
do. Mr. Schwirtz spoke about the seating spaces versus the number of parking spaces. There
are 100 seating spaces and 14 parking spaces, which didn’t seem equitable. He had concerns
about snow removal and where they would put snow after they removed the grass areas. The
parking lot was needed and he would be in favor. He spoke about a lot of excess noise. He
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
said the white fence on the property is a traffic hazard and is difficult to see around. He said
another concern was property values because of the lack of parking.
Amy Neitzel, 3723 Quebec, stated she may need to sell and she was worried about property
values. She felt the City should have arranged a meeting earlier. She agreed that the fence
was a traffic hazard. The parking lot would be a great asset, but it should be at the
maximum number of parking spaces. Ms. Neitzel said the customers are inconsiderate and
causing the problems. She suggested they consider a sign stating that the customers should
be respectful of the neighbors. She said she wanted good sound barriers. She commented
that service road parking was dangerous. Another concern was the alley. She stated she was
in favor of this if it would reduce the parking issues and safety was taken into concern.
Vice Chair Person closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked for an informal poll of residents who were in favor
of the parking lot.
Eight residents raised hands in favor and four were opposed.
For the record, Vice Chair Person referred to Chair Kramer’s e-mail about the request.
Commissioner Carper asked for clarification on other businesses, such as YUM, that have
installed signage regarding parking in the neighborhood.
Mr. Fulton responded the City has a variety of controls it can place on parking on public
streets. He explained those range from allowing parking on a public street to limiting it to
one-hour parking or permit parking, which was complex and challenging to enforce. The
solution for YUM was a permanent parking situation. He said this issue hadn’t been
discussed with Public Works. Parking changes need to be approved at City Council. Staff
had also looked at the question of parking a certain distance from intersections. The Public
Works Dept. was looking into how to install signs relating to parking. Because of State law,
there is a very specific set of standards for traffic signage.
Commissioner Carper asked if the future request for a conditional use permit for the parking
lot could be denied.
Mr. Fulton replied that it could be denied.
Commissioner Shapiro asked about parking requirements for a future new use.
Mr. Fulton replied this is a small C-1 site, which limits the opportunities for redevelopment
for commercial activity. He explained the requirement for a medical/dental office, for
example, is one space per 250 square feet of building. In the case of a restaurant the
requirement is based on the square footage of the building, 1 space per 60 square feet. In
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
this case, it is an outdoor restaurant and it applies differently. Staff hadn’t gotten into that
level of detail. He added generally speaking, there is one space per three seats.
Commissioner Shapiro said he wanted to be sure if this was rezoned to commercial, that they
were not closing out any other potential business from being there and then left with a
vacant site.
Mr. Fulton stated this site is about 20,000 square feet and similar to many other C-1 sites.
This size site faces challenges of parking and storm water.
Ms. McMonigal added every time a building changes use, the parking is re-evaluated to
determine whether the use is allowed to go in or not based on the parking.
Commissioner Morris stated there were bigger issues besides living in cooperation with the
existing business. They were proposing to turn a $214,000 home into a parking lot. He spoke
about the City’s housing goals. The proposal would eliminate a single family home. He asked
if this is a valid exchange of land uses. Commissioner Morris stated that the neighborhood node
concept was also challenging for him. He asked if this is a destination for the neighborhood. It
is a drive-in restaurant. There are not a lot of sidewalks in this neighborhood, which means
there is walking in the street if it is a destination. He said the other concern was what the site
could change into. Once you close the door on residential, you are allowing anything else to go
in there. The neighbors like what is existing and the efforts being made to revitalize a non-
conforming node. There are still controls. Once they change it, they would have to talk about
what kind of parking lot, not if they would have one. He questioned whether 22 parking spaces
would bring more people in and they would still have the same parking issues unless they address
the issues of on-street parking through permitting and signage. They were taking 22 cars off of
the streets so 22 more could park in the neighborhood. For a land use, he said he was
fundamentally opposed to tearing down single family homes to build parking lots. He said he
thought most of the Commissioners were opposed to that philosophy. It is a philosophy that
needs to be weighed against development needs. The City does like to have good businesses, and
neighborhoods like to have those businesses. He said he didn’t support the staff
recommendation because he was opposed to the loss of the home.
Commissioner Morris asked if under the current zoning Galaxy could obtain a liquor license.
Mr. Fulton replied that he believed the applicant could do it through a conditional use
permit in the C-1 District, although it would need further review. He said he didn’t believe
they could apply for one in their current situation. Restaurants are designated by permitted
with liquor and permitted without liquor.
Commissioner Morris read from the housing goal section of the Comprehensive Plan. The
housing goal was contrary to the proposal to take down single family homes. He stated that was
what was swaying his vote as opposed to the land use change.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said Commissioner Morris summed it up for her. She
had not thought about the possibility of a liquor license. The struggle she was having was
the removal of a single family home from the housing stock. She said she would not vote for
approval.
Commissioner Carper said he understood that the City didn’t want to arbitrarily eliminate
homes. That was not their purpose. He said the City has been acting aggressively to add
more homes and has been selling property and attempting to work with people to divide
existing properties in order to build more homes. The Commission needs to look at how
the City changes and how development changes and what types of development were
occurring that enhanced the City and made it a better place for all citizens. He said he
hated to see a perfectly good home destroyed, but he thought there was justification for this
request.
Vice Chair Person said he agreed that spot zoning of this type was undesirable in a
neighborhood. He commented that the neighbors seemed to be generally supportive of the
proposal because they felt the applicant had been forthcoming in meeting their concerns.
For that reason he was inclined to support the proposal.
Commissioner Shapiro noted there were two sides to the issue. The business is there. It is a
non-conforming use, but it was existing use. He said it is probably better to have the parking
lot there than to not have it there, except for the neighbors next to the lot. They would be
tearing down a single-family house.
Mr. Schussler clarified that they were not tearing down the house. They were giving it to
charity and it would be donated and moved. Their ambition was not to tear down the
house.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison felt that was a great idea, but adding the parking lot
wouldn’t eliminate the parking problem. She questioned whether this would be what they
were looking for.
Commissioner Morris was inclined to favor of the proposal if the house relocation was a
done deal, that is if the agency were named and plans were made to move the home. It was a
good idea, but it didn’t change his mind.
Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial and a Rezoning from R-2 Single
Family Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial at 3715 Rhode Island and 3712
Quebec.
Commissioner Shapiro seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-2
(Johnston-Madison and Morris voted no).
Created: October 14, 2009Prepared By: St. Louis Park Community Development
^
Galaxy Drive In: Comprehensive Plan AmendmentExisting:
Proposed:
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
²
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b)Page 18
Created: October 14, 2009Prepared By: St. Louis Park Community Development
^
Galaxy Drive In: Zoning Map AmendmentExisting:
Proposed:
Legend
Zoning
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Family Residential
RC - High Density Multi-Family Residential
²
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b)Page 19
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8b)Page 20
Meeting Date: November 16, 2009
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:
Denial of On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License with Sunday Sales – El GordoUno, Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting Findings of Fact and Decision denying the application for an
on-sale liquor license by El GordoUno, Inc. dba El Gordo Mexican Restaurant located at 8140
Highway 7.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the findings of fact and decision for denying a liquor license to El
GordoUno, Inc?
BACKGROUND:
At a Special Study Session on October 5, 2009, the City Council discussed if they would like
further information regarding the unique background investigation findings of the applicant or if
they have sufficient information to make a decision on the application for an on-sale intoxicating
liquor license to El GordoUno, Inc. After the discussion it was the consensus of the City Council
for staff to provide further documents and any records that the applicant wished to submit.
At the City Council Meeting of November 2, 2009, the City Council directed the city attorney to
prepare written findings and a decision denying the application of an on-sale intoxicating liquor
license with Sunday sales to El GordoUno, Inc. dba El Gordo Mexican Restaurant.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City of St. Louis Park Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND DECISION DENYING THE
APPLICATION FOR AN ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE BY EL GORDOUNO, INC
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2009, the St. Louis Park City Council met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the application of El GordoUno, Inc. for an on-sale intoxicating
liquor license and on-sale Sunday liquor license; and
WHEREAS, the sole owner and officer of the Applicant, Baldomero V. Alguizar, and the
Applicant's attorney, Katherine E. Becker, were present, and the City Council conducted a public
hearing and heard testimony from them and any other interested persons wishing to speak at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, having carefully considered the information submitted by the Applicant in
writing and at the public hearing, and contained in the staff report, including the City Clerk's
application materials and police department's background investigation, the Council makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant El GordoUno, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation.
2. Baldomero Valenzo Alguizar is the sole owner and officer of the Applicant corporation. His
date of birth is August 5, 1967.
3. In May of 2008, Mr. Alguizar filed an application on behalf of El GordoUno, Inc. for an on-
sale intoxicating liquor license for a restaurant located in the Knollwood Mall located at
8140 Highway 7 in St. Louis Park. Mr. Alguizar signed his name Baldomero Valenzo on all
documents relating to this Application despite the fact that his Minnesota driver's license is
issued to Baldomero Valenzo Alguizar.
4. As part of the 2008 Application, Mr. Alguizar was provided with and signed a document
captioned "Information Advisory and Authorization for Release of Information to Support
License Application" which advised him that failure to reveal required criminal information
would be considered falsification of the application and may be used as grounds for denial.
5. As part of the 2008 Application Mr. Alguizar answered "No" to the following question
relating to his personal information as the owner, officer and store manager of the Applicant:
Have you or your spouse ever been arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor, felony or
liquor law violation in this state or any other state?
6. The background investigation performed by the St. Louis Park Police Department as part of
the 2008 Application and the current Application revealed a criminal history for Mr.
Alguizar that lists associated names and possible aliases of "Baldomero Alguizar", "Baldomero
Valenzo Alguizar", "Baldo Valenzo" and "Baldomero Valenzo."
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
7. Mr. Alguizar has the following criminal convictions:
Conviction Date Offense Conviction Level
11/20/1997 DWI Misdemeanor
08/03/2000 DWI Misdemeanor
12/22/2000 D.A.C. Gross Misdemeanor
07/3/2002 DWI Misdemeanor
06/26/2008 Malicious Punishment of Child Gross Misdemeanor
06/26/2008 Interference with 911 Call Gross Misdemeanor
The latest June 26, 2008 criminal convictions arose out of an arrest that occurred on December 9,
2007, prior to the 2008 Application and was not revealed by Mr. Alguizar as part of that
Application.
8. In July of 2008, Police Chief John Luse recommended denial of the 2008 Application based
upon the criminal history and Mr. Alguizar's misleading approach to the application process.
9. In August of 2008, Mr. Alguizar withdrew his application.
10. On June 30, 2009, Mr. Alguizar on behalf of El GordoUno, Inc. submitted a new
application for an on-sale liquor license at the same location. It is this 2009 Application that
is before the City Council.
11. In the 2009 Application the name on his Minnesota driver's license, Baldomero Valenzo
Alguizar, was used in all the application materials.
12. Mr. Alguizar is on probation for the June 26, 2008 convictions for Malicious Punishment of
a Child and Interference with 911 Call until June 25, 2010.
13. The criminal history of Mr. Alguizar directly relates to his ability, capacity and the fitness
required to sell alcoholic beverages in a responsible manner. The most recent gross
misdemeanor charge of interference with a 911 call raises questions about Mr. Alguizar's
ability to work with law enforcement in a cooperative manner, which is essential to proactive
enforcement of laws relating to the sale of liquor.
14. Mr. Alguizar's failure to initially disclose any of his four DWI convictions and 2007 arrest,
together with the use of a name different than on his driver's license, evidences a lack of the
honesty and moral character needed to operate an establishment that sells alcoholic
beverages. The City has limited resources to regulate license holders and must rely on a
licensee's candor and honesty to assure that establishments are responsibly and lawfully
operated.
Meeting of November 16, 2009 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
15. The facts set forth above evidence that Mr. Alguizar, the sole shareholder, officer and
manager of the Applicant, does not have the good moral character necessary to ensure that
there would be no threat to the public interest and reasonable control of the sale of alcohol if
the license application were to be approved. The facts also enhance the danger of unsuitable
or illegal practices in connection with the sale of alcoholic beverages.
16. The City Council has considered all evidence of rehabilitation and has determined that there
is insufficient evidence of rehabilitation considering the serious nature of the criminal
history, the nature of the license sought, the failure to disclose convictions on the initial
license application and the fact that Mr. Alguizar is still on probation for the latest
conviction.
17. The Applicant is El GordoUno, Inc., not Mr. Alguizar individually. To the extent it applies
to a corporate application for a liquor license, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 364.05, the
Applicant is hereby notified that it can reapply for the license on or after the completion of
Mr. Alguizar's probation on June 25, 2010. All competent evidence of rehabilitation
presented will be considered upon reapplication, including, but not limited to, whether or
not Mr. Alguizar has been convicted of any additional liquor-related or other crimes relating
to his fitness to hold a liquor license.
18. Minnesota Statutes 364.06 contains the following complaint and grievance procedure: "Any
complaints or grievances concerning violations of sections 364.01 to 364.10 shall be
processed and adjudicated in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 14, the
Administrative Procedure Act."
19. The City Clerk's license file and the Police Department's file on El GordoUno, Inc. are
incorporated herein by this reference.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By The City Council Of The City Of St.
Louis Park, that the application of El GordoUno, Inc. for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and
on-sale Sunday liquor license is denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk