HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/09/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2008
Mayor Jacobs Absent
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Minnesota Recreation and Park Association - Recycling in the Parks Program Award
2b. 2008 Evergreen Awards
2c. Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Rink Rat Hockey Program Award
2d. Retirement Recognition for Lieutenant Dale Antonson
3. Approval of Minutes
3a City Council Closed Executive Session Minutes September 2, 2008
3b. City Council Minutes September 2, 2008
3c. City Council Special Study Session Minutes September 2, 2008
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent
calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
Meeting of September 15, 2008
City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending Sections 4-81 through 4-89
concerning dogs and set second reading for October 6, 2008.
8b. Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for
Wooddale Pointe
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Final Plat with easement variances and
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for a five story mixed use building
with commercial uses on the ground floor and senior residential on the upper floors
with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
8c. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
3408, 3412 France Avenue; 3409, 3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue
Case No.: 08-27-CP
Recommended Action:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from RM – Medium Density Residential to CMX – Commercial
Mixed Use for the properties located at 3408 and 3412 France Avenue and 3409,
3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue, based on the findings in the staff report and
resolution.
8d. I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
Recommended Action:
MnDOT staff will be in attendance to present and discuss the I-394 MnPASS Phase
II Planning Study with the City Council.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
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 of September 15, 2008
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution to recognize Dale Antonson’s retirement after 21 years of service to the
City of St. Louis Park
4b. Adopt Resolution requesting the Metropolitan Council to provide additional time to
complete the Comprehensive Plan Decennial Review
4c. Authorize staff to issue a Request for Bid to replace existing City building telephone system
4d. Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the LRT
and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through St. Louis Park for 2008-2009 winter season
4e. Designate G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder of the earthwork portion
and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $131,090.04 and
designate DMJ Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder of the paving aspect and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $251,307.44 for the Fern
Hill Park project
4f. Designate G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder for the construction of
Tennis Courts at Bass Lake, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $128,223.30
4g. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 80-08 - Water Project – Recoat Elevated Water
Tower No. 4 - Project 2007-1500
4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing a Hennepin County Grant Agreement to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program
4i. Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer
service line at 3217 Florida Avenue South
4j. Accept Donation from American Legion Post 282 in the amount of $500 for use at
Westwood Nature Center
4k. Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression
sprinkler system at 4838-4850 35th Street, St. Louis Park, MN
4l. Adopt Resolution approving designation of nonconservation land shown on Classification
List “1442 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the
property at 3308 Xenwood
4m. Adopt Resolution accepting Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Federal Recreational
Trail Grant
4n. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4o. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes April 15, 2008
4p. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes May 20, 2008
4q. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
4r. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2008
4s. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes July 16, 2008
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Award Presentation from the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association - Recycling in the Parks
Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. Donna Tilsner, Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Committee
member will be in attendance to present an Award of Excellence to the City Council and Parks and
Recreation Department for the Recycling in the Parks Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department is receiving an Award of Excellence from
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association for the Recycling in the Park program.
The City of St. Louis Park prides itself on being green and environmentally friendly. Recycling in
the parks had been attempted in the past but was unsuccessful due to high amounts of
contamination (garbage). In 2006, the city solicited and was awarded a $20,000 grant from
Hennepin County to initiate a successful recycling program in the parks. The grant was used to
determine the best containers to successfully collect recycling and reduce the amount of garbage
collected in our parks.
The grant project, implemented in early spring of 2006, tested contamination levels found in four
different recycling containers with different colors, shapes and tops. Some containers looked similar
to our green, 96-gallon plastic garbage carts with flip top lids, while others looked starkly different
being yellow metal 55-gallon drums with a lid attached and a small hole the size of a typical beverage
container. The containers were placed next to the standard garbage containers in 12 selected parks.
An educational campaign to promote this recycling program consisted of letters to the youth
associations (i.e. Little League), information in the city-wide newsletter and website, and the
attachment of recycling stickers to the containers.
Three recycling sorts were performed to calculate the amount of contamination, the type of items
that were recycled (i.e. cans, glass, plastic), and the amount of each type of recycled material. These
sorts were performed in June, July and September.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Recycling in the Parks Grant
Using our findings, we implemented a comprehensive parks recycling program in 2007. The City of
St. Louis Park used 96-gallon green carts with green lids for garbage and 55-gallon yellow drums
with flat lids, which included a hole, for recycling. There are 43 recycling drums in 17 parks. The
parks selected are based on high use, such as large picnics, organized athletic programs or other
similar features and uses.
We are proud to say this program is a success. In 2006, 1.74 tons of material was recycled. In 2007,
the amount of recycled material from our parks doubled to 3.4 tons. We will annually review and
analyze our results to maximize recycling and minimize garbage and contamination. The annual
tonnage results and weekly visual monitoring of containers serve as our review and evaluation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The total cost of the 2006 project was $35,000. Hennepin County awarded the City $20,000 of that
cost and $15,000 was supplied by the Park Maintenance budget. Ninety percent of the project cost
was to purchase new garbage containers and experimental recycling containers.
In 2007, the cost of the parks recycling program was $1,500. The city paid Waste Management to
recycle the material.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This activity is compatible with the City’s strategic direction of being a leader in environmental
stewardship. The community embraced the parks recycling program, with all of the athletic
associations leading the effort. There are over 20 organized neighborhoods in St. Louis Park who
were strong supporters. The support from the community for recycling in our parks was outstanding
as is indicated with the amount of tonnage recycled doubling in one year.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2008 Evergreen Awards.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is requested to present the 2008 Evergreen Awards to the following recipients:
• Jodi Johnston at 3156 Idaho Avenue South
• Barbara Bindgen and Tom Johnson at 4107 West 40th Lane
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
BACKGROUND:
The Evergreen Award is presented each year in recognition of properties that are uniquely designed,
landscaped and well maintained with an emphasis on landscaping that is visible to the passerby.
Businesses, apartments and houses are all eligible to receive the award.
The judges selecting the Evergreen Award recipients are comprised of Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission members, past Evergreen Award winners, volunteers and staff who have a keen interest
in flowers, plants, landscaping and landscape design. There were five judges inspecting this year’s
nominations.
There were seven nominations this year spread throughout the City. Winners are presented with an
award certificate and a Dwarf Alberta Spruce tree.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Well maintained landscaping enhances the beauty of St. Louis Park. This program is consistent with
the one of the Council’s Strategic Directions of “….promoting aesthetics…” in the community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2c
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:
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Rink Rat Hockey Program Award.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. Donna Tilsner, Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) Award
Committee Member, will be in attendance to present an Award of Excellence to the City Council
and the Parks and Recreation Department for the Rink Rat Hockey Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department will be receiving an Excellence in
Programming Award from MRPA for the Rink Rat Hockey program.
The program was run in conjunction with the cities of New Hope, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale,
Plymouth, and Crystal. We had 17 kids sign up to play in this non-competitive league
The Rink Rat Hockey program has been established as an opportunity for youth to play outdoor
recreational hockey in a minimally structured environment. The communities involved have
committed to offer this opportunity as a low cost, educational, positive, and family schedule friendly
program. In an environment designed to promote year round active lifestyles for youth, all are
invited to participate regardless of ability, experience, economics or gender. Some of these kids may
decide they like the game of hockey and choose to play for the association in the upcoming years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2d
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:
Retirement Recognition for Lieutenant Dale Antonson
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present a plaque to Fire Lieutenant Dale Antonson
for 21 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service
will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council.
Dale will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The Mayor is asked
to read the resolution and present Dale with a plaque in recognition of his years of service to the
City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 2d) Page 2
Subject: Retirement Recognition for Lieutenant Dale Antonson
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO DALE ANTONSON
WHEREAS, Dale Antonson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 21
years ago on January 4, 1987; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been a member of Local 993 for over 20 years, holding the positions of
President and Secretary; and
WHEREAS, Dale has worked to make sure new firefighters are properly indoctrinated into the
City and the Fire Department, is an award winning arson photographer, understands the importance
of fire prevention to the Fire Department and the public; and
WHEREAS, Dale is a master gardener, and he loves to work in gardens and do landscape to
beautify peoples’ homes; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been recognized for his service to the community through numerous
letters of appreciation and thanks from those he served; and
WHEREAS, Dale will spend his retirement with his wife Lyndra, spending time gardening,
traveling in Wolfy (his VW micro bus) and enjoying the great outdoors;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Fire Lieutenant Dale Antonson
for his great contributions and 21 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish
him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
1. Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phillip Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Sue Sanger,.
Councilmembers absent: C. Paul Carver (Mr. Carver was participating via phone).
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resource Director/Deputy City Manager
(Ms. Gohman), Parks & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh).
Others present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott) and League of MN Cities Attorney (Mr. Zipf).
2. Nicolas Slade Litigation/Pending Mediation Settlement
League of Minnesota Cities Attorney Mr. Zipf discussed the litigation and pending mediation
settlement with Nicolas Slade in a Closed Executive Session.
3. ARINC Litigation
City Attorney Mr. Scott provided an update regarding the ongoing litigation with ARINC in a
Closed Executive Session.
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: C. Paul Carver
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Finance Director (Mr.
DeJong), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Assistant Finance Director (Mr. Swanson)
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
2. Presentations – None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Study Session Minutes August 11, 2008
It was noted on page four, item #4 the fifth paragraph, second sentence should state: “…
going to majority events, the programs are not effective.”
It was noted on page four, item #4, the last paragraph, last sentence should state: “She
questioned if the language interpreter line gets much use.”
3b. City Council Special Study Session Minutes August 18, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Minutes August 18, 2008
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.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes September 2, 2008
4a. Approve a Brewpub Off-Sale Malt Liquor License for Granite City Food and
Brewery located at 5500 Excelsior Boulevard for the license term through March 1,
2009.
4b. Authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the purchase
of Granular Activated Carbon in the amount of $125,500.00.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 08-108 Requesting Funding from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation through the Municipal Agreement Program for Street
Project - Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue Intersection, Project No. 2004-1700.
4d. Approve Out-of-State Travel for Mayor Jeff Jacobs, September 22-23, 2008.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 08-109 Approving the Naming of the Baseball Field at
Elie/Tower Park.
4f. Approve Six Month Extension for filing of Final Plat titled “Hilton Homewood
Suites”.
4g. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 40-08 - 2008 Local Street Improvement
Project – City Project No. 2007-1000 and 2008-1600.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 08-110 authorizing the installation of “No Parking”
restrictions on the western cul-de-sac of Cavell Avenue South.
4i. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 88-08 - 2008 Sealcoat Project – City
Project No. 2008-0001.
4j. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes July 9, 2008.
4k. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2009 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to
adopt Resolution Nos. 08-106 and 08-107 approving proposed 2009 Tax Levy, approving
preliminary budget for 2009 and setting public hearing date for proposed budget and
property tax levy and authorizing the HRA Levy for 2009.
The motion passed 6-0.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes September 2, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if staff would still be working with the numbers. Mr.
Swanson stated it is the uppermost number, stating they can work to make it lower, but it
would not be any higher than the approved amount.
Mayor Jacobs reminded everyone that it’s generally set at that rate and through the course of
working through the budget, the number can decrease.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked the public and Council for being on hand at the schools to welcome the kids
back to school on the first day.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that Jerry Timian was missed this year for his usual participation
in the event.
Councilmember Sanger reminded everyone that Tuesday, September 9th is the Primary Election
and for everyone to get out and vote. She also noted that the Lennox Senior Federation is
sponsoring an Intergenerational Bowling Tournament Sunday, September 7th from 4 – 6:30 p.m. at
Park Tavern.
Mayor Jacobs reminded everyone of the Belgian Waffle Dinner at Lennox on Friday, September 26th
from 4:30 – 7:00 p.m.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Human Resources Drector/Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), Park Superintendent (Mr.
Beane), Recreation Supervisor (Mr. Birno) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
Guest: None
1. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Preserving, Enhancing and Providing Good
Stewardship of our Parks
Ms. Gohman introduced the Council item and Mr. Beane.
Mr. Beane provided an overview of the report, which included staff’s recommendation to create an
Internal Guide and have the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) review and
prioritize the items.
Mr. Harmening clarified that once PRAC prioritized their ideas on this Vision area, they would
report back to Council.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would like to encourage prairie grass plantings, which would be an
environmental and cost savings.
Councilmember Sanger felt the list was a good starting point and complimented staff for their hard
work.
Councilmember Paprocki, Councilmember Omodt and Councilmember Finkelstein felt the report
was well done and recommended staff continue to move ahead.
Councilmember Omodt suggested the City consider subsidizing private tree planting to make it
easier for people and to also keep graffiti concerns in mind.
Mr. Beane informed Council that we currently recycle in the parks. Councilmember Finkelstein
indicated he wants us to do more.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Special Study Session Minutes September 2, 2008
Councilmember Sanger suggested expanding the Commission to include people who have expertise
in environmental practices or when vacancies occur to look for candidates with this type of
experience.
Mr. Beane updated Council on the Emerald Ash Borer.
The consensus was to have PRAC review the list of priorities and report back to Council.
2. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Exploring Creation of a Multi-Use Civic Center,
including indoor/winter use
Mr. Birno presented the staff report.
Ms. Walsh stated staff would like a numbers survey to gather ideas on what the public wants to see.
Currently the top three are an indoor unstructured active recreation space; a healthy lifestyle – low
impact programming space; and an artist space (education, display and performance).
Mayor Jacobs stated he would like to see a community safe place hangout place for kids and
multigenerational usage.
Councilmember Basill agreed with staff’s recommendations and felt it was a great vision.
Councilmember Paprocki suggested looking at what summer activities are underutilized in the
winter months and try to accommodate those.
Councilmember Sanger stated that indoor space is critical and suggested creating a partnership with
the health clubs in town to make their usage more economical and feasible for the public to use. She
also suggested making the needs decision first and then look at location within the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated concern with the cost and annual maintenance. Mr. Birno stated
affordability was brought up in the public input process and staff would be looking into it.
Mr. Harmening stated that the strength of community is partnerships in community, further stating
it would be logical to partner with existing fitness centers.
Councilmember Sanger also stated concern with activity transportation. Mr. Birno stated it is staff’s
goal to eliminate the barriers.
It was the consensus of Council to follow the current strategic direction.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Special Study Session Minutes September 2, 2008
3. Communication
Mr. Harmening mentioned that Eden Prairie PD had requested a Mutual Aid Alliance with a
possible protect that may occur at Tech System, stating six off duty officers would be available to
help out.
Mr. Harmening stated that Hamline University would be moving into the 1600 building.
Mr. Harmening advised Council that Char Rohlik from the Public Works Department would be
traveling to Washington DC with WWII veterans on an Honor Flight next week and suggested
Council send Vmail to the soldiers on that flight.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Retirement Resolution for Lieutenant Dale Antonson.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution to recognize Dale Antonson’s retirement after 21 years of service to the
City of St. Louis Park
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service
will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Dale Antonson for his years of
service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Retirement Resolution for Lieutenant Dale Antonson
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO DALE ANTONSON
WHEREAS, Dale Antonson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 21
years ago on January 4, 1987; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been a member of Local 993 for over 20 years, holding the positions of
President and Secretary; and
WHEREAS, Dale has worked to make sure new firefighters are properly indoctrinated into the
City and the Fire Department, is an award winning arson photographer, understands the importance
of fire prevention to the Fire Department and the public; and
WHEREAS, Dale is a master gardener, and he loves to work in gardens and do landscape to
beautify peoples’ homes; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been recognized for his service to the community through numerous
letters of appreciation and thanks from those he served; and
WHEREAS, Dale will spend his retirement with his wife Lyndra, spending time gardening,
traveling in Wolfy (his VW micro bus) and enjoying the great outdoors;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Fire Lieutenant Dale Antonson
for his great contributions and 21 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish
him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date:
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:
Request for Comprehensive Plan Time Extension.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution requesting the Metropolitan Council to provide additional time to
complete the Comprehensive Plan Decennial Review.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Communities in the Twin Cities area are required to update their Comprehensive Plans at least
every 10 years. The date for submittal is December 31, 2008; however another portion of the law
requires a 6-month period of review for surrounding communities and other affected government
agencies. This, along with staff workload, is why this time extension is requested.
Our plan has been continuously updated over the past 10 years and is a fairly up-to-date plan. We
are working on updating several of the required Metropolitan Council aspects of the plan, (such as
sewer, water, storm sewer, parks, transportation and land use) as well as incorporating our Vision,
revising the format and vastly improving the maps. We expect to have a draft plan for Planning
Commission and City Council review in December, after which we can begin a public review and
send the map to surrounding communities, other jurisdictions, and the Metropolitan Council for
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Some policy issues related to future plans and construction projects will require further discussion.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Vision will set the stage for the direction of our Comprehensive Plan. All of the Vision
elements will be incorporated throughout the plan. In this way, we build each Vision element into
our goals, policies and action plans to be implemented on a daily and weekly basis.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (ItemNo. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Request for Comprehensive Plan Time Extension
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME
TO COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN “DECENNIAL” REVIEW
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires local governmental units to review
and, if necessary, amend their entire comprehensive plans and their fiscal devices and official controls at
least once every ten years to ensure comprehensive plans conform with metropolitan system plans and
ensure fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with comprehensive plans or permit activities
that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to
complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2008; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 authorizes the Metropolitan Council to grant
extensions to local governmental units to allow local governmental units additional time within which to
complete the “decennial” review and amendments; and
WHEREAS, any extensions granted by the Metropolitan Council must include a timetable and
plan for completing the review and amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City will not be able to complete its “decennial” review by December 31, 2008, for
the following reasons: staff workloads, several topical and area plans in progress.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is appropriate to request from the Metropolitan Council an
extension so the City can have additional time to complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for
review an updated comprehensive plan and amend its fiscal devices and official controls.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, as follows:
1. The City Manager is directed to submit to the Metropolitan Council no later than
November 1, 2008, an application requesting an extension to May 29, 2009.
2. The City Manager must include with the request a reasonably detailed timetable and plan for
completing: (a) the review and amendment by May 29, 2009; and (b) the review and
amendment of the City’s fiscal devices and official controls.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Authorization to Issue Request for Bid – City Building Telephone Replacement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize staff to issue a Request for Bid to replace the existing City building telephone
system.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue with this initiative?
BACKGROUND:
At its July 21 meeting, Council received an update on plans to replace the existing PBX-based Nortel
phone system, which serves most major City buildings including City Hall, Police Station, Fire
Stations, MSC, Utilities, Recreation Center, and Nature Center. The Nortel telephone system was
installed in the mid-1980’s and has been upgraded several times in the intervening 20+ years. The
Nortel system has served the City well and been quite reliable. However, the phone system is aging
from a maintenance perspective and lacking features constituents increasingly expect. Reasons for
replacement were detailed in the July 21 report.
Elert & Associates was selected as the consultant to assist the City in defining needs, preparing a
Request for Bid, and assisting with system implementation. One of the steps in defining needs is to
meet with various employee groups to solicit input on needs and features. More important, Elert
learned more about current business practices in phone use. That process was completed in August.
We also met with the City Council on August 11 and with the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission on August 13 to gain perspective on phone system needs with those external to City
Hall - those who call into the system. We received some excellent input from both groups. In
addition, a brief web survey is being conducted during the month of September to provide an
opportunity for input from anyone else interested.
DISCUSSION:
Clearly, much work has been done collecting information about our existing infrastructure, phone
use, and needs. The project has now reached the stage of issuing a Request for Bid (RFB). This RFB
takes into account the feedback received, feature options requested, the business processes in various
departments and for the City as a whole, needs, and cost. Feature options ultimately included will
result in part from new technology that has new features built in as standard. More important,
however, true value of new features is driven from how the City’s businesses processes can be
enhanced through the commitment to use of new features. Not all new features apply. Choices and
trade-offs will be necessary. It is anticipated that bids will be received over the next few weeks, then
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Authorization to Issue Request for Bid – City Building Telephone Replacement
vetted in the context of RFB specifications and feature alternates. Final recommendations are based
on the RFB specifications and feature alternates. Elert & Associates continues to support staff
throughout these phases. Staff currently plans to return to Council with results and
recommendations from the RFB process in November.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This CIP project has a total overall budget of $300,000 for 2008. The RFB to be issued requests
that vendors provide the City options for installation of a base telephone system, and alternates to
provide various features beyond the base system. Current estimates range from $220,000 to
$270,000 for the phone system itself, depending on features and phone models actually selected and
current market pricing. This allows staff and Council to consider pricing differences for each
significant feature, and the potential value of that feature now or as an add-on in the future. This is
consistent with feedback received from the City Council that staff first seeks a solid and reliable
replacement telephone system, and recommends adding only those features that provide true and
projectable value to serving constituents. Approximately $100,000 in network upgrades is also
projected. While these upgrades are necessary to support the new telephone system, these network
upgrades ultimately support data, video, and radio traffic much more than voice traffic. As a result,
these upgrades would be funded as part of planned (and now accelerated) network capital
investments. The existing telephone system and much of the replaced network equipment would be
traded in for credit as part of the project.
Different vendors take different approaches to both what they include in their basic systems and how
they price them. Having said that, the RFB is structured to encourage consistency in responses to the
degree possible. The Technology Replacement Fund is the source of funding for this project.
Although scheduled in 2008, it is clear that the project will not be completed until 2009.
POTENTIAL CITY – SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATION:
The City Council has requested staff to continue to consider ways in which the City and St. Louis
Park Schools can collaborate to enhance joint effectiveness and efficiency in investment of taxpayer
dollars. Thus, it is worth noting that the St. Louis Park School District is also considering
replacement of its existing telephone system and awaits results of the November referendum and
potential funding. Staff discussions are occurring among City, Schools, and consultant staff to
determine whether any synergies or economies of scale exist should the City and Schools collaborate
in some form on acquisition of replacement telephone systems. There is much to consider in a
collaborative process of this complexity. However, if there are overall synergies and economies of
scale to collaborating, this would be the most responsible action for staff to recommend. Please note
that these conversations in no way suggest that the School District is assuming the referendum will
pass.
One way to determine whether any collaboration benefits exist is to test the market by requesting
bids from vendors with alternates that include replacement of the City telephone only, the Schools
telephone system only, and the City and Schools telephone systems combined. The City and Schools
can choose to reject any and all bids, whether based on referendum funding results or the bids
themselves. These alternates are included in the RFB, provide maximum flexibility for the City and
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Authorization to Issue Request for Bid – City Building Telephone Replacement
Schools, and make any financial commitments by the City or Schools at their discretion. Again, as
note above, this approach in no way assumes any particular result from the Schools referendum
process.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Contract
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing of regional park trails).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the
LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for 2008-2009 winter
season.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue this contract relationship with Three Rivers Park District?
BACKGROUND:
The Southwest LRT and the Cedar Lake Extension trails are owned and maintained by Three Rivers
Park District. However, Three Rivers Park District does not clear or remove snow from their trails
during the winter. They will allow cities to plow snow from their trails under the terms of a contract.
The City of St. Louis Park has cleared and removed snow from the regional trails since 2000. This
service is appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year. As a part of the snow
removal policy, staff recommends the City of St. Louis Park continue to clear the regional trails
through our city since Three Rivers Park District does not. Approving this contract would allow us
to do so for the winter of 2008-2009.
Clearing or removing snow from the LRT trail would be done in much the same manner and
priority as previous years. The trails would be cleared as a part of the Public Works snow removal
policy. Clearing the Cedar Lake Extension is a bit more difficult. There are some areas where the
trail is 10 feet wide with only a 12-foot wide easement. If there are times when the City gets several
inches of snow at one time, it may be difficult for maintenance staff to remove the snow since there
is no room to store it and no way to access the trail to remove it. Staff will keep the City Manager
and City Council informed if the snow accumulations are significant and maintenance staff are not
able to remove the snow. The contract with Three Rivers Park District states that the City must
repair any damage to the trail while plowing snow. Staff will take precautions to prevent damage in
our snow removal process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The resources necessary to undertake this activity are included in the operating budget. There are no
additional expenses expected that are different from the previous years when we have plowed these
trails.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Winter Trails Activity Permit with Three Rivers Park District
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This activity is consistent with the Strategic Direction of being a “connected and engaged
community”. This service is appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year.
Attachments: Contract (on file with the City Clerk)
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Bid Tabulation: Fern Hill Park Redevelopment Project – Project No. 20080070.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder of the earthwork portion
of the Fern Hill Park project and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$131,090.04.
Motion to designate DMJ Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder of the paving aspect of the
Fern Hill Park Development project, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $251,307.44.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on September 8, 2008 for the 2008 Fern Hill Park Redevelopment Project. The
project involves construction of 1 tennis court, a ½ court basketball court, a perimeter trail around
the park, repaving of the parking lot, regrading of turf, adding irrigation to the park area, creating a
multi use ball field and a open space useable for soccer and other sports,
A total of ten (10) bids were received for the project. An advertisement for bids was published in the
St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on Aug. 28 and Sept. 4, 2008 and in the Construction Bulletin on Aug.
25 and Sept. 1, 2008. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR Earthwork Bid Amount Paving Bid Amount
G. L. Contracting Inc. $131,090.04 No bid
Sunram Construction Inc. $142,903.28 No bid
DMJ Corporation $150,919.00 $251,307.44
Quiring Excavating, LLC $154,333.75 No bid
Northwest Asphalt, Inc $201,262.85 $252,118.65*
Midwest Asphalt Corporation No bid $260,422.80
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. No bid $263,671.60
Veit & Company, Inc. $172,680.50 $273,807.10
Hardrives, Inc. No bid $339,010.70
Friedges Contracting Co., LLC $354,197.62 $256,834.70
Project Manager’s Estimate $132,500 $245,000
*Bid corrected upon extension
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: Fern Hill Park Redevelopment Project – Project No. 20080070
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder of the earthwork contract for the
Fern Hill Park Development project. They received very good references from their past projects.
Staff recommends DMJ Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder of the paving contract for the
Fern Hill Park Development project. DMJ Corporation is a reputable contractor and has worked
successfully completed previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin in the September of 2008 and should be completed June of 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is funded through the Park Improvement Fund. The original budget for these projects
was $305,000. The City Council agreed to an additional $100,000 expenditure for the addition of a
tennis court and additional trail connections as requested by the Fern Hill neighborhood. There is
an additional $190,000 budgeted out of the Park Improvement Fund for the construction of the
picnic shelter in this park. Staff believes that the entire project can be completed within budget
unless there are some unforeseen circumstances that arise.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Projects like this are consistent with the City Councils Strategic Direction of being a connected and
engaged community and creating community gathering places.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Superintendent of Parks
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Bid Tabulation: Bass Lake Tennis Court Construction Project – Project No. 2008-4715.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder for the construction of
Tennis Courts at Bass Lake, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$128,223.30.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
With the development of the Melrose Institute, the City of St. Louis Park negotiated the
development of two tennis courts to be constructed on the site. This bid is for the construction of
these two courts on the southwest part of the park.
Bid Information:
Bids were received on September 8, 2008 for the 2008 Bass Lake Tennis Court Construction
Project. The project involves the construction of two tennis courts on the south west portion of the
park site adjacent to the Melrose Institute.
A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. Although the low bid was higher than the
estimate from SRF Consulting Inc., staff believes it is still a good price. There are some additional
soil corrections necessary to complete the project. The bids received reflect that additional work.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on Aug. 28 and Sept. 4,
2008 and in the Construction Bulletin on Aug. 25 and Sept. 1, 2008. A summary of the bid results
is as follows:
CONTRACTOR Bid Amount
G. L. Contracting Inc. $128,223.30
DMJ Corporation $139,948.75
Northwest Asphalt, Inc $144,354.87
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $165,621.50
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $178,003.79
Veit & Company, Inc. $180,631.00
Friedges Contracting Co., LLC $199,307.25
Project Manager’s Estimate $120,000.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: Fern Hill Park Redevelopment Project – Project No. 20080070
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends G.L. Contracting Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder of the Bass Lake Tennis Court
Construction project. Although G. L. Contracting Inc. has not worked for the city before, reference
checks revealed that G. L Contracting, Inc. has an outstanding reputation for their quality and
timeliness of recent work for projects with Orono and Chaska school districts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin in the fall of 2008 and should be completed spring 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
United Properties is responsible for reimbursing the Economic Development Authority/City for the
cost of constructing the tennis courts.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Rick Beane, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Order No. 1 to Contract 80-08 - Water Project – Recoat Elevated Water Tower No. 4 -
Project 2007-1500.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 80-08 - Water Project – Recoat Elevated
Water Tower No. 4 - Project 2007-1500.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total contract expenditures exceed $50,000.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved and established this project in May 2008 which provides for the
recoating of the interior and exterior surface of Elevated Water Tower (EWT) along with minor
structural modifications and repairs. On June 2, 2008 Council awarded a contract for this work to
Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. for $874,000. Work on this project started in August and is to be
completed this year.
After construction began it was found there were some additional antenna brackets and electrical
boxes on the tower that are no longer required and should be removed. In addition, the City
recently added a new valve and hydrant to better drain the water tower; the old drain pipe is now
obsolete and should be removed for safety reasons. This additional work was requested by City staff
and results in additional costs of $4,250.00. Details regarding this extra work are provided in
Change Order No. 1 (attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
Staff has negotiated the cost for this extra work with the Contractor at $4,250.00. The source of
funding for this contract work is the Water Utility.
The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 80-08 is now estimated as follows:
Original Contract $ 874,000.00
Change Order No. 1 $ 4,250.00
Total $ 878,250.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract 80-08 Water Project Recoat Elevated Water Tower No. 4 Project 2007-1500
Contract Terms
All other terms of the Contract will remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Change Order No. 1
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract 80-08 Water Project Recoat Elevated Water Tower No. 4 Project 2007-1500
Contract No.: 80-08
Change Order No.: 1 Date: August 20, 2008
Project Name: Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4
Project Location: 2541 Nevada Avenue South
Contractor: Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. 7655 Vernon Street
Rockford, MN 55373 Phone No. 763/229-2678
Type of Work: Extra work - removal of antenna brackets and metal boxes on the tower columns and the drain pipe
located in the wet riser
Amount of Original Contract: $874,000.00
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Remove 3 Sets Antenna Brackets 3.00 $2,500.00 0 0 3.0 $2,500.00
Remove 5 Metal Boxes 5.00 $1,250.00 0 0 5.0 $1,250.00
Removal of 4 or 6-inch pipe type
drain pipe located in the wet riser 1 $500.00 0 0 1 $500.00
Total with Revised Quantity $4,250.00
Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $ 4,250.00
Original Contract Price:
$874,000.00
Previous Change Orders (None)
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $878,250.00
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in original
contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Manager Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at the above stated
price.
Approved: ______________________________________ ______________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Hennepin County Recycling Grant Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing a Hennepin County Grant Agreement to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to receive assistance from the County to help pay for our recycling program?
BACKGROUND:
Annually in February the city submits a grant report and application for SCORE funding. SCORE
(Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor Perpich to provide
a funding source for solid waste programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE funds are derived from a
6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These funds are distributed to Counties for solid waste
programs, particularly recycling collection. Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from
Hennepin County as an aid in supporting the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single
family through four-plex residential structures. The County’s share of SCORE funds is divided between
cities on a proportional basis by the number of households.
The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2010, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds, which the County
receives from the State of Minnesota.
This report and request is based on a Hennepin County requirement to provide a Council Resolution
authorizing each agreement. This particular resolution covers the Municipal Recycling Grant
Agreement terminating December 31, 2010. The Agreement also lists the initial grant payment, for the
year 2008 as $101,301. The terms of this agreement are the same as in the past agreements.
Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the Municipal Recycling Grant
Agreement to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The funding from this grant program is necessary to help operate the City’s recycling program.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Hennepin County Recycling Grant Agreement
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Vision areas:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Community members
are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions today influence the greater
ecology inherited by future generations.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Subject: Hennepin County Recycling Grant Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - ___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have
an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a recycling
program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated recyclables
to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling
programs; and
WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the conditions set
forth in the funding policy and the agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Manager and City to execute
on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the
furnishing of a recycling program during 2008 through 2010.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin
County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling program
as committed to by its submission of the 2008 Hennepin County recycling grant application and that
the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing the City’s waste reduction
and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract Compliance Officer.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment for Water and Sewer Service Line Repair at 3217 Florida Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer
service line at 3217 Florida Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Jeffrey L. and Tina M. Mickelson, owners of the single family residence at 3217 Florida Avenue South,
have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water and sewer service lines for their home and
assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of 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 the service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water and sewer service lines in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water and sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $6,545.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment for Water and Sewer Service Line Repair at 3217 Florida Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES AT
3217 FLORIDA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3217 Florida Avenue South have petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer service lines for the single
family residence located at 3217 Florida Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice
and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility
Superintendent related to the repair of the water and sewer service lines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the water and
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water and 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 water and sewer service lines is accepted at $6,545.00
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the
special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by
ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a
special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%, which assessment is hereby
adopted.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to
implement the repair of the water and sewer service lines and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4k
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Acceptance of American Legion Post 282 Donation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from American Legion Post 282 in the amount of $500 for use at
Westwood Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
The American Legion Post 282 is graciously donating to the Parks and Recreation Department an
amount of $500 cash. The donation is given with the restriction that the funds be used for
purchases at the Westwood Nature Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will assist us in presenting programs that benefit youth in the community.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 2, 2008 Page 2
Subject: 2009 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM AMERICAN LEGION POST 282 IN THE AMOUNT OF $500
FOR USE AT WESTWOOD NATURE CENTER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any
donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor;
and
WHEREAS, the American Legion Post 282 desires to assist Westwood Nature Center in its
provision of programs for youth with a donation of $500; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that
the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the American Legion.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4k
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression
sprinkler system at 4838-4850 35th Street, St. Louis Park, MN
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with a policy the Council has established in 1995.
BACKGROUND:
Beltline Three LLC, owner(s) of the commercial building 4838-4850 35th Street, have requested the
City to authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the
commercial building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
ANALYSIS:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings
was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression
sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and
welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system due to major remodeling
project of the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler
system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the
proposed work, the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner
has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and special assess the
cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total
eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $71,785.00. An administrative fee of
$359.00 shall be received prior to the release of the special assessment funds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund to assist with this project.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 4838-4850 35th Street , St. Louis Park, MN 55416
WHEREAS, Beltline Three LLC , the Property Owner at 4838-4850 35th Street have
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire
sprinkler system in the building on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their 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
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system.
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 fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler
system is accepted at $71,785.00.
4. An administrative fee of $359.00 (.5% of $71,785.00) for processing shall be
received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5. The total special assessment against the property will be $71,785.00.
6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights 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.
7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point eight percent
(5.8%) interest.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 4
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other
documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and
the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 5
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FIRE PROTECTION (SPRINKLER) IMPROVEMENT, FOR BELTLINE THREE LLC,
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4838-4850 35TH STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
AGREEMENT made as of September 15, 2008 between the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota corporation (“City”) and Beltline Three LLC, (Owner). “Property Owner”, concerning
special assessment on fire sprinkler improvement on property located at 4838 35th Street, “Benefited
Property” described as “That part of Lot 3 lying Northeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at a point in Northerly line of Lot 3 distant 483’ Northeasterly from the northwest
corner there; thence Southeasterly parallel with the Westerly line thereof 252 66/100’; thence
Southwesterly to a point in the South line of Lot 3 distant 459 75/100’ from the southwest corner
thereof, Block 1, Belt Line Industrial Park.”
The City and the Property Owner agree as follows:
1) Property Owner(s). The Property Owner is Beltline Three, (Charles N. McCain
will sign on their behalf).
2) Subject Property. The Property Owner is the fee owner of the property legally
described in attached “Exhibit A” incorporated by reference herein.
3) Purpose of Agreement. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 sub. 3 and
St. Louis Park Resolution 08-_________ the Property Owner petitioned the City on July 21, 2008
to specially assess the cost of the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in his building at
the Benefited Property. The petition attached as “Exhibit B” is incorporated into this agreement by
reference. The City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the public for the City
to facilitate the installation of a fire sprinkler system in the Benefited Property to promote the public
health, safety and welfare.
4) Administrative Fee. An administrative fee of $359.00 for the processing of the
sprinkler special assessment shall be received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5) The Improvement Project. The construction of an automatic fire sprinkler system
throughout the commercial building at the Benefited Property in conformance with plans and
specifications as described in Exhibit B and as approved by the St. Louis Park Fire and Inspections
Departments.
6) Responsibility. The Property Owner shall assume all responsibility for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the fire sprinkler system, including all construction
contracts and monitoring agreements.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 6
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
7) Amount to be assessed. The total estimated cost of the project, based on the lowest
responsible bid, is $71,785.00, all of which is proposed to be assessed against the Benefited Property
as described in Paragraph 2 above. It is hereby agreed that the full cost of the project and minus the
administrative fee of $359.00 will be assessed against the property. The total Special Assessment
against the property will be $71,785.00.
8) Waiver of Notice and Hearing. In connection with this improvement, the
Property Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to public hearing and right to any
notice, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by ordinance,
City Charter, constitution, or common law.
9) Waiver of Right of Appeal. In connection with this improvement, the Property
Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to appeal from the special assessment set
forth above, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by
ordinance, City Charter, constitution, or common law.
10) Implementation. Each party to this agreement agrees to execute any other
documents upon request of the City, necessary to implement the waivers of notice, hearing and right
of appeal for the special assessment for the improvement project.
11) Payment. The Property Owner agrees to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements in accordance with the following terms:
a) The assessment shall be paid in equal installments over ten (10) years at five point eight
percent (5.8%) interest on the unpaid balance and in accordance with all provisions of
the City policy for special assessments for fire sprinkler improvements.
12) Indemnification. The Property Owner shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, or expenses,
including attorneys fees, which may be suffered or from which they may be held liable, rising out of
or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the
performance of this agreement by the City, its employees, agents or subcontractors.
13) Certification of Encumbrances or Contract for Deed. Each party to this
agreement certifies that the property described in Paragraph 1 above, is owned by that party in
simple fee and is free and clear of all encumbrances or Contracts for Deed except as follows:
14) Right to Record. It is agreed that the City may record this document in the chain
of title of the Benefited Property legally described above.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 7
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
15) Payment. The Property Owner agrees that, after the City has completed the
required inspections and has determined that the installation of the fire sprinkler system is in
conformance with the applicable City ordinances and State laws, the Property Owner will provide
the following documents to the City to allow the City to process payment of the amount to be
assessed for the installation of the fire sprinkler system on the Benefited Property:
a) A sworn construction statement stipulating the contractors and suppliers involved in the fire
sprinkler installation on the Benefited Property and the agreed payment amounts, and
b) A written notice from the Property Owner that they have determined the installation of the
fire sprinkler system has been substantially completed as stipulated in their contract with
their contractor, and
c) Evidence of receipt of a lien waiver from the contractors and suppliers for the improvement
project on the Benefited Property.
It is further agreed by the City and the Property Owners, in making payment to the Property
Owner, the City is not assuming responsibility for payment to any contractor or supplier for the
installation of the improvement project on the Benefited Property.
This agreement has been entered into as of the 15 day of September, 2008.
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
__________________________________
Attest: Mayor
________________________________ __________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
__________________________________
Fire Marshal
(seal)
Accounting Records Posted:
__________________________________
Director of Finance
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 8
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
* FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER:
ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCE(S) PROPERTY OWNER
_________________________________ ________________________________
_________________________________ ________________________________
* All signatures of owners or encumbrances must be acknowledged by a Notary Public.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 2008,
by _______________________________________, property located at 4838-4850 35th Street .
Property Owner(s)
____________________________________
Notary Public
THIS AGREEMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: St. Louis Park Fire Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952-924-2500
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4l
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 3308 Xenwood Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving designation of nonconservation land shown on
Classification List “1442 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the
property at 3308 Xenwood.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with the recommended action? The purchase and rehabilitation of
this substandard single family home in partnership with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land
Trust/Homes Within Reach (HWR) meets the City’s Vision and housing goal to provide more
affordable home ownership opportunities in the city.
BACKGROUND:
County Tax Forfeit Process:
On July 18, 2008, Hennepin County notified the City that the property at 3308 Xenwood Avenue
was being tax forfeited for non-payment of taxes. The property is a vacant home in substandard
condition. The owner of this property is deceased.
Whenever property goes tax forfeit in Hennepin County, the County advises the city where the
property is located. Cities have the option of requesting a tax deed for the property for a public
purpose, requesting a nonpublic sale to the city, or authorizing the County to sell the property at
auction. The County also requests the city confirm by resolution the classification of the property as
Non-Conservation (i.e. not a wetland, lake, etc.).
Hennepin County requires municipalities to approve a resolution approving designation of tax
forfeit land as non-conservation and requesting its purchase in order for it to be sold for
development. This is a legal requirement that allows cities to purchase tax forfeited lands located in
their communities rather than having the County sell the land through public auction. In this case,
the resolution must be passed within 60 days from the July 18, 2008 date, or September 18, 2008.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 3308 Xenwood Avenue South
Status:
Recently, family members notified the County that they have an interest in repurchasing the home.
In the event the family opts to repurchase the home, the city would step aside. The purpose of this
resolution is to indicate to the County within their 60 day timeframe, that the City may be
interested in purchasing the property if the family does not, and if a purchase price is low enough to
result in a home affordable to a household with a qualifying income.
Potential for Redevelopment as Single Family Affordable Ownership:
City staff has reviewed this property along with HWR staff, and recommends, with conditions, that
a purchase be facilitated by the Housing Authority (HA) using Housing Rehab Funds in partnership
with HWR. If purchased, the City/HA would facilitate the sale of the 3308 Xenwood home to
HWR for an affordable home.
Property Information:
This 3 bedroom, two bath home is in substandard condition with significant deferred
maintenance problems, including water damage from roof and foundation leaks.
The family of the deceased owner has just recently learned the property had gone tax forfeit
and has verbally requested repurchase from the county.
Back taxes total approximately $25,000. There is no mortgage on the home - it is paid in
full.
If the family complies with County guidelines and repurchases the home, the City will not
pursue purchase from the County.
The family has indicated if they repurchase, they may be interested in selling the home to the
City.
Purchase Price to the City has not been determined:
The 2008 City assessed estimated market value is $253,300. A purchase price has not yet been
determined and the appraisal would be conducted once the home is cleared of debris. City and
HWR staff estimates there would be significant rehab costs including roof, foundation, mechanical,
and possible electrical work along with gutting of some interior walls. Since the rehab costs will be
high, the City/HA would only purchase the home if it can be purchased at a low enough price to be
consistent with redevelopment for an affordable owner occupied home. Since this home would
require major rehabilitation, the net purchase price will need to be in the range of $75,000.
Because this property is being sold by the County as tax forfeited property, the County is required to
share the proceeds form the land sale (after payment of taxes) with the City.
Next Steps:
Passage of this resolution does not commit the City/HA to purchase the property, it simply allows
the purchase if conditions are met. Staff will continue to work with the County and Homes within
Reach, and keep Council apprised of its status.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Page 3
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 3308 Xenwood Avenue South
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City Housing Rehab Fund has budgeted $50,000 in funds to facilitate affordable ownership
opportunities. The anticipated net cost to the City for this home, working with HWR, is no more
than $50,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Acquisition and rehab of a vacant substandard home for an affordable ownership opportunity is
consistent with one of the City Councils Strategic Directions and Focus Areas as follows:
Strategic Direction – St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well maintained and diverse
housing stock.
Focus Area – Work towards affordable single family homeownership throughout the City.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Page 4
Subject: Tax Forfeited Property Purchase from Hennepin County at 3308 Xenwood Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST “1442 C/NC”
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
3308 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of Minnesota
for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List “1442 C/NC”; and
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as nonconservation land, and its sale has
been authorized by said Board; therefore,
WHEREAS, as City requests acquisition of said properties for redevelopment of an
affordable single family home contingent upon failure of the owner’s heirs to repurchase, and
contingent upon a sale price that is consistent with redevelopment for an affordable owner occupied
home, through the City’s partnership with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust – Home
Within Reach Program which is administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as nonconservation
described in said list is approved, and the sale of the land described below is approved:
Lot 3172 Norwaldo, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Property I.D. 16-117- 21- 24-0080
3308 Xenwood Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4m
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program Award for Roadside Park Trail Connection.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Federal Recreational
Trail Grant.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to accept the grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the
amount of $21,000 that will connect Roadside Park to the Southwest LRT Regional Trail?
BACKGROUND:
Parks and Recreation staff applied for a grant from the Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Staff was recently notified that they had received a trail grant
in the amount of $21,000. It is a matching grant for a local trail connection that will connect Roadside Park,
located at the southeast corner of Highway 7 and Highway 100, to the to the Southwest LRT Regional Trail.
Matching funds for this project are budgeted in the 2008 and 2009 Capital Improvement Plan under the
Beehive Project. This is part of a larger project of moving the Beehive from the east side of Highway 100 to
Roadside Park The Beehive will be moved to its new location this fall and this portion of the trail section is
slated for completed in 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Matching funds for this project are budgeted in the 2008 and 2009 Capital Improvement Plan under the
Beehive Project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Directions and Focus areas:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus areas:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails; and
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources. . . .
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the
community.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
• Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Subject: Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program Award for Roadside Park Trail Connection
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - ___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS GRANT
PROGRAM OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURE RESOURCES FOR THE
FEDERAL RECREATIONAL TRAIL GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a city-wide system of walks, trails and bikeways to be
built and maintained by the city; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified thru a community visioning process that creating new gathering
places, developing expanded and organized networks of sidewalks and trails, promoting regional
transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources preserving, and enhancing and providing good
stewardship of our parks is a priority for the community:
• Building a trail link from Roadside Park (historic park location west of Nordic Ware) to the
Southwest Regional Trail will provide a link/connection to the historic gathering place; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has awarded the City a grant in the amount of $21,000 for the
building of a local trail connection that will connect Roadside Park located at the southeast corner of
Highway 7 and Highway 100 to the to the Southwest LRT Regional Trail; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes the fifty (50) percent match requirement for the
Federal Recreational Trail Grant Program and has secured the matching funds.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
hereby accepts the grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to be used to connect
Roadside Park to the Southwest LRT Regional Trail and may enter into an agreement with the State of
Minnesota for the above referenced project. The City of St. Louis Park will comply with all applicable laws,
environmental requirements and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Fiscal
Agent for the City of St. Louis Park for this project is: Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance, City of St. Louis
Park, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the City of
St. Louis Park hereby assures the Roadside Park trail will be maintained for a period of no less than 20 years.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4n
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period August 30, 2008 through September 12,
2008.
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
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
640.00SKATEBOARD/INLINE PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
640.00
106.07SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
106.07
10,828.92EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
10,828.92
12,680.12EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTACTION FLEET INC
12,680.12
187.60EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP
187.60
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE
225.00
458.71SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
458.71
56.25COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
56.25
7.87VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGESAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
744.11GENERAL REPAIR TIRES
751.98
108.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESAMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC
108.50
86.82GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
141.20PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
101.34PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
136.33VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
67.92WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
67.92SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
601.53
1,439.11PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,439.11
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
165.34TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEANDERSON, BETSY
165.34
325.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANDERSON, TRAVIS
325.00
9,715.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTE
9,715.00
127.20GARAGE MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO
127.20
1,106.19BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBACHMANS
2,357.74BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
2,500.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
5,963.93
122.02CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBARR ENGINEERING CO
2,849.62CE DESIGN GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,763.83CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,735.47
7,044.50WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBERG, JANICE
7,044.50
437.50REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGERSON CASWELL INC
437.50
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
225.00
31.29POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBIKEMASTERS
31.29
186.61ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
186.61
708.97NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
708.97
7,441.06WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
7,441.06
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
592.41OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESBRADCO SERVICES INC
592.41
2,592.80GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,268.50CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
435.00CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,296.30
244.95PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBRENTS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS
244.95
111.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGBRIGLEY ROOFING INC
111.40
69.49NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
69.49
37.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGBROWN, PETER
37.40
145.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGBUDGET EXTERIORS
145.00
176.75TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICECALHOUN, TOMI
176.75
2,449.92DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
2,449.92
7,703.65INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCARVER, CITY OF
7,703.65
23,722.97DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
11,735.79MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,689.50CITYWIDE SF INSPECT REHAB PRGM LOAN RECEIVABLE - LONG TERM
750.00CITYWIDE SF INSPECT REHAB PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
41,898.26
12,720.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
12,720.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
66.34WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCIRESI, ANTHONY
66.34
34.65-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
27.85ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
236.00ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
233.90ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
948.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
161.87ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
1,247.23APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
567.65GROUNDS MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
308.69SUPERVISORYSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
19.23PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.77-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
125.67ORGANIZED REC G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
22.96ORGANIZED REC G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
492.44SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
684.00YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
213.39GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
93.85BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
66.18CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1.46CABLE TV G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
230.64EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
496.20DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1.35DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
6,115.14
2,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGCITY IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS
2,500.00
16,984.60ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
16,984.60
369.85NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
369.85
55.06PATCHING-PERMANENT GENERAL SUPPLIESCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
55.06
57.50WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
57.50
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
249.59SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSCUES
214.36STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
463.95
190.25SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
190.25
11,797.54WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
11,797.54
115.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEDALBY, SCOTT
115.00
208.24GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
1,338.63BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,546.87
12,339.58INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
12,339.58
10,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
10,000.00
164.34COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
433.02PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHING
356.35POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
953.71
141.11WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDON'S RODENTS
141.11
240.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDUNDOVICH, PATRICIA
240.00
125.80ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
125.80
2,450.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEBERHARD CONSTRUCTION INC
2,450.00
36.74PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESELLINGSON, JUDY
36.74
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
45.03VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
45.03
3,351.11PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
31.20GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
3,382.31
95.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENCORE BROKERS
95.00
11,111.00SAMPLINGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESENSR CORPORATION
3,606.41STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,717.41
1,110.14STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
1,146.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
2,257.06
153.40GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSEQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEM
153.40
145.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGEXTERIOR ENHANCEMENTS
145.00
324.53ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
38.41WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
362.94
77.77ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFECHNER, MARTY
77.77
124.31POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
124.31
5,519.79OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
5,519.79
32.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALFLARE HEATING & AIR
32.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
212.68SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERFLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL
212.68
455.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGFULTON, ADAM
455.00
5,690.50WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGENE'S WATER & SEWER INC.
5,690.50
64.14GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSGENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP
64.14
96.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
96.00
7,750.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGOLIATH HYDRO-VAC INC
7,750.00
1,335.00EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTGRAFIX SHOPPE
1,335.00
8.66APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATGRAHAM, NATHAN
8.66
462.96PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
462.96
4,667.20SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
4,667.20
111.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGGRAYHAWK BUILDERS
111.40
335.52WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
335.52
1,056.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
1,056.00
245.53STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHANSON PIPE & PRECAST INC
245.53
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
805.12SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHARMON INC
805.12
6.51WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHAUSER, LIZA
6.51
6,893.35WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
6,893.35
10.93WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
189.12WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
200.05
400.00YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEALEY, MICHAEL
400.00
137.39PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEDBERG AGGREGATES
137.39
312.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
312.00
125.00PATROLTRAININGHENNEPIN CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION
125.00
10.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY GIS USER GROUP
10.00
1,287.50OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES
1,287.50
1,140.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1,140.00
6,545.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
6,545.00
447.72WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
447.72
92.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3.17PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
96.14
165.17POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
165.17
3.02GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
24.86POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
23.42TASK FORCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
72.04PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
85.90SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
209.24
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHOOK LLC & MICHAELS CONSTRUCTI
5,000.00
145.66ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
145.66
440.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
132.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
572.00
44.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
168.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.00
192.40GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
117.09PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
309.49
132.66IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
132.66
253.73GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
253.73
30.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTI/O SOLUTIONS INC
30.00
195.34POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESIDENTISYS
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.29POLICE G & A POSTAGE
206.63
3,485.94PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
3,485.94
260.93TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
260.93
3,065.00CITY HALL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESINSPEC INC
3,065.00
1.56-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSINTAB INC
25.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.00
73.43GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
73.43
167.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
167.50
11.59WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSJACOBSON, DUANE
11.59
43,784.26CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIJEDLICKI INC, G F
43,784.26
64.18WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, ROGER
64.18
350.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEJT MURAL PAINTING & THEME ARTS
350.00
585.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
796.00SUNSET RIDGE LEGAL SERVICES
832.00WESTMORELAND HIA LEGAL SERVICES
2,213.00
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWKOLLOER, RYAN
750.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
130.53POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTKUSTOM SIGNALS INC
130.53
61.42GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLANO EQUIPMENT INC
61.42
60.46GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
60.46
450.00TRAININGTRAININGLOCAL 49 TRAINING PROGRAM
450.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
450.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
450.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
1,800.00
37,949.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
1,399.42NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
1,400.50APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
40,748.92
2,510.23HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONLOOKOUT BAR & GRILL
2,510.23
966.02PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVESLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
966.02
68.43GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
68.43
2,462.49PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCROSSAN INC, C S
48.24PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,194.46PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,705.19
63.88LOCATES/GOPHER ONE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
63.88
175.00WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMERINO, JOSE
175.00
78.79PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.56TRAININGTRAINING
120.35
10.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETRO HOUSING CORP
10.15
101,178.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
101,178.00
208.00TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIESMICHAEL PRODUCTIONS, GENE
208.00
38.42SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
235.17WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
273.59
105.16WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMIDWEST AREA CLOSERS
105.16
5,973.56SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
1,075.71PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
7,049.27
850.94SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS PRINTING & PUBLISHINGMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
850.94
24,455.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSMIDWEST FUELS INVER GROVE HEIG
24,455.54
4,882.47PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST PLAYGROUND CONTRACTORS
4,882.47
26,564.80PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST PLAYSCAPES INC
26,564.80
406.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
406.00
30.00SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMINNEAPOLIS RIFLE CLUB
30.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TRAININGMINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASS
25.00
346.79STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATI
346.79
31.42ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA DEPT TRANSPORTATION
31.42
180.68PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
180.68
248.99PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
248.99
409.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC
25.72WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
434.95
240.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO
240.00
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMONTY, JOHN
750.00
823.89GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
823.89
1,306.58POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTMOTOROLA
1,306.58
250.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMSA
250.00
154.59GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
154.59
21.40GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
14.69PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES
684.67PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
84.38GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
452.25GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
30.21SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
14.68SEWER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,302.28
68,509.98EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTNELSON LINCOLN MERCURY
68,509.98
32.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGNORBLOM PLUMBING
32.00
45.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER
45.00
225.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER APA
225.00
166.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'CONNOR, CHARLES
166.72
739.33ANIMAL CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
739.33
174.20ENGINEERING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOCE
174.20
128.70WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
128.70
25.50ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
380.21ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.37DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
27.00POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
34.48COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OFFICE SUPPLIES
101.12INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.08WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
701.76
1,820.70INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,820.70
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
96.74OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOHLIN SALES INC
96.74
120.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSOLSON, JIM
120.00
140.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOLSON, JONATHAN
140.00
44.77NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESORTON, PAM
44.77
339.98VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPARTS ASSOCIATES INC
339.98
1.16-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
18.96BOILER MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.80
36.50TASK FORCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPETTY CASH
49.97INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
121.47
69.38WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
28.89WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
28.29FIELDTRIPSGENERAL SUPPLIES
15.00THE WESTWOOD CREW GENERAL SUPPLIES
141.56
173.81PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
173.81
13,624.16PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON INC
13,624.16
487.90GENERAL REPAIR TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
487.90
598.66GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTPOTTER, ROBERT
598.66
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.38FINANCE G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPRINT SHOP
41.38
2,860.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
2,860.00
53.45BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPUMP & METER SERVICE
53.45
16,308.66SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIQUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
16,308.66
195.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
195.40
49.08VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
400.00WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
449.08
22.50REC CENTER BUILDING TELEPHONEQWEST
22.50
1,825.49FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
815.84REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
78.16WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
604.07SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,323.56
1,288.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSREADY WATT ELECTRIC
1,288.00
63.47WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREILLY, MRS GEORGE
63.47
942.48PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTRICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE CORP
942.48
144.35GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSRIGID HITCH INC
144.35
35.04VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESRMS RENTALS
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
207.48PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
242.52
494.00PLUMBING MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEROTO-ROOTER
494.00
4,350.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWROTTLUND HOMES
4,350.00
66.56WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRP MANAGEMENT
66.56
900.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC
900.00
3,363.18PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
3,363.18
784.15GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
1,020.28PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,804.43
2,168.40DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
2,168.40
5,147.97GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
20,499.09PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
22,622.12PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30,897.98PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
125.00CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
80,342.82CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
159,634.98
117.78POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
117.78
1,350.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESSTATE OF MINNESOTA
1,350.00
77.80INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGSTEINKRAUS PLUMBING INC
77.80
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
49.65OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSTEMMER, LUKE
49.65
184.32WESTWOOD G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTITCHIN POST
184.32
219.54SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTRAND MFG CO
219.54
3,330.63EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
3,330.63
91.88WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY
91.88
483.60GENERAL REPAIR TIRESSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
483.60
15.38-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUMMIT SUPPLY CORP OF COLORADO
252.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
236.62
472.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
691.20WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL NOTICES
1,163.20
946.39WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSWANSON PROCESS SERVICES
946.39
420.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWANSON, JORDAN
420.00
24.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSZNEWAJS, ANDREA
24.32
1,462.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
1,462.00
37.09GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
20.77POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.50POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
70.85POLICE G & A TRAINING
11.98FIELDTRIPSGENERAL SUPPLIES
77.32SUMMER GRADE 4, 5 GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.91SUMMER GRADE 6-8 GENERAL SUPPLIES
295.42
100.62ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
100.62
84.44GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
84.44
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
8.35WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTHOR, THOMAS
8.35
105.83INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTILTON, JOHN
105.83
335.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
335.75
3,088.50EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTTIZIANI GOLF CAR OF MN LLC
3,088.50
10,735.22TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICETOP NOTCH TREE CARE
10,735.22
1,750.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTRESERA CONSULTING LLC
1,750.00
176.39GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
176.39
167.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGTURCO CONSTRUCTION
167.40
24.93PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSTURFWERKS LLC
24.93
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
949.00OPERATIONSTRAININGTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
949.00
2,559.60OPERATIONSTRAININGTWL KNOWLEDGE GROUP INC
2,559.60
307.00SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
255.00SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
50.48OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
612.48
37.90WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
37.90
129.45VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
8.28SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
137.73
157.37ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
157.37
1,395.36VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
45.99COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,441.35
282.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESVESSCO INC
282.23
137.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING DISCOUNT BLINDS
137.90
39.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALVOGT HEATING & A/C
39.00
11.41WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWALZ, MRS RALPH
11.41
184.81PARK MAINTENANCE BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT
848.12SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,032.93
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
482.72WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
482.72
17,500.00HOUSING LAND TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSI
17,500.00
496.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSEWHITE, PERRY
496.50
534.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
534.50
857.67EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S STATE WITHHOLDINGWISCONSIN DEPT OF REVENUE
857.67
112.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWOJCHIK, KEVIN
112.50
16,584.95WOLFE LAKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE LAKE ASSOCIATION
16,584.95
133.80INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGWRIGHT AT HOME SERVICES INC
133.80
210.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESWSB ASSOC INC
210.00
717.06NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWYATT, LISA
717.06
3,557.29FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
163.64PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
488.73WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
22,251.25ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
799.90WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
10.18OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
105.96OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
12.78WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
27,389.73
4,500.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTYESS!
4,500.00
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
09/11/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:07:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
09/12/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
680.28PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SMALL TOOLSZACKS INC
680.28
200.52AQUATIC PARK G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
200.52
Report Totals 948,092.90
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4n)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4o
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – April 15, 2008
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Mohammed Abdi, Mary Feldman, Bill Gavzy, Sharon Lyon, Lisa
Miller, Stuart Morgan, Joe Polach, Vladimir Sivriver and Shelley Taylor
Absent: Helen Fu, Sonja Johnson, Ahmed Maaraba, and Dalton Shaughnessy
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Guest: Pat Swiderski, PAC Liaison
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Morgan noted his name was spelled incorrectly.
It was moved by Commissioner Abdi to approve the minutes of Mach 18, 2008, as amended.
The motion passed 9-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Ms. Olson noted Commissioner Appreciation event would be held before the May 5th City
Council meeting at 6 PM in the Council Chambers. She passed around a flyer about an
upcoming film, The Children’s Republic on April 17th.
Lt. Dreier stated a letter had been sent regarding the bias crime discussed at a previous meeting.
Charges had been filed for an assault. A brochure about the HRC had been included.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes April 15, 2008
III. New Business
A. Resources/Groups and Organizations for Networking Event
Ms. Olson stated that PPL (Project for Pride in Living) and Perspectives were planning a
resource fair for Louisiana Court residents some time in June. They are looking to partner with
10-15 community organizations and local services to connect the residents to their resources.
She contacted Amanda Herbst at PPL about the event. If the Commission was interested, they
could learn from this and about some of the agencies. PPL has done this in other cities and
found if it was done on-site, more people attended. Ms. Herbst indicated she could come to a
commission meeting to discuss it and they might consider the HRC having a booth at the event.
Chair Miller felt the Commission needed to determine the nature of the event they were
planning.
Ms. Olson indicated she would invite Ms. Herbst to attend the May meeting.
B. Vision St. Louis Park
Ms. Olson indicated at the last meting they talked about the diversity lens. They had just received
some ideas from a graphic designer for a handout/sign. The communications staff had some ideas
about animating it and putting it on the web site.
Lt. Dreier attended the citywide update on the Vision process and they would be ready to report
to Council this summer. There would be a lot going on with trails and sidewalks, etc. They will
finish this piece with Council in August.
Commissioners indicated they preferred the handout with the photos and most preferred the
circle design. It was suggested to make the words “respect” and “reflect” larger and when it was
being animated, to alternate the words in between “we” and “us”. Commissioners liked the
photos that had been chosen.
Ms. Olson would show the updated versions at the next meeting.
C. Film Series
Commissioner Taylor reported that Commissioner Sivriver had donated several videos in
Russian about St. Louis Park children to the Commissions library. The sub-committee had met
two times and is trying to pick films. They discussed having 2-3 films and to cover areas that
weren’t addressed in the last series (ex. GLBT; Arab, Islam or Post 911 racism; hidden
disabilities; SE Asia, they are previewing a film on Hmong women). They wanted to have a
great film and a great speaker to go along with it. They will be previewing films before the next
meeting, but hadn’t dealt with funding. For the next series, they plan to aggressively advertise
and the deadline for the community education booklet is in June and they would hope to chose
the films before then. Another ambitious idea they were considering was producing a 30-60
second introduction about the HRC to run before the films.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes April 15, 2008
Ms. Olson suggested working with Reg Dunlap the Civic TV coordinator, who would be a good
resource.
Ms. Olson noted there was probably enough money in the commission budget to cover two to
three films.
Commissioner Polach suggested the public school district as a resource for films.
Dates suggested for films were October 16th and November 13th. Ms. Olson would check
availability of the Council Chambers.
D. Ice Cream Social
Ms. Olson stated the Ice Cream Social is on May 18th from 2-5 PM at Wolf Park. She
distributed a sign up sheet for Commissioners to work at the booth that day. They will provide
handouts, buttons, have projects for children and hopefully advertise for the film series.
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
¾ PPL/Amanda Herbst
¾ Vision update
¾ Film Series
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4p
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – May 20, 2008
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Mohammed Abdi, Helen Fu, Sonja Johnson, Ahmed Maaraba, Lisa
Miller, Joe Polach, Vladimir Sivriver and Shelley Taylor
Absent: Mary Feldman, Bill Gavzy, Sharon Lyon, Stuart Morgan and Dalton Shaughnessy
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Other:
Eric Hauge with Home Line and residents from The Edge of Uptown, formerly Park Hill,
managed by Goldmark Property Management presented concerns to the Commission about
changes in Section 8 policies, increases in rent and potential discrimination by the
management company.
This was not something under the Commissions jurisdiction and the Commission referred
the residents to HUD’s Fair Housing Department. Ms. Olson noted the Housing Authority
had been working with HUD on this issue. She would continue to monitor this, but there
was currently no role for the Commission.
B. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Maaraba, seconded by Commissioner Polach, to approve the
agenda as presented. The motion passed 8-0.
C. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Maaraba, seconded by Commissioner Abdi, to approve the
minutes of April 15, 2008, as presented. The motion passed 9-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Ms. Olson stated that the Children’s First Ice Cream Social was a successful event and the
Police Advisory Commission was also represented.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes May 20, 2008
III. Unfinished Business - None
IV. New Business
A. PPL Resource Fair
Ms. Olson reported that PPL (Project for Pride in Living) is hosting a resource fair on June
17th at Louisiana Court. They were inviting local resources to attend and share information
with residents and connect them to local agencies to use their services. They asked the HRC
to provide information at a booth. Commissioners Polach, Taylor and Sivriver volunteered
to attend.
B. Vision Update
Ms. Olson stated the City’s communication staff hoped to have a Vision Diversity Lens
design for the
website by the June meeting. There are 400 pictures available to use if Commissioners
wanted to look through them with her. Commissioner Fu agreed to help. Information
about the Commission will be on
the City’s web site after it is redesigned.
C. Film Series
Commissioner Taylor indicated she had watched some of the films that were being
considered. Some of the films include: A Dream in Doubt, Being Osama, TV’s Promise
Land, and In My Own Skin. She hadn’t gotten information about the costs of the films yet.
They were also considering films about anti Arab issues and GLBT family issues.
Ms. Olson referred Committee members to John McHugh who runs Community TV if they
were interested in using a studio.
Commissioner Taylor discussed funding for the 2008 film series. There is money in the
budget that can be used towards the film series. The sub committee will meet again to
decide films by mid June and discuss advertising. They would need a lot of help to
distribute flyers.
D. Work Plan Discussion
Ms. Olson indicated there was discussion at the last meeting about the PPL resource fair and
what the Commission would like to do to connect resources and people together. The
Commission discussed forming a sub committee to discuss this Work Plan item and then
bring it to the full Commission for further discussion.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes May 20, 2008
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Film Series
National Night Out
Work Plan
PPL Resource Fair
Vision Update
Update on tenant situation (if available)
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4q
City of St. Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Minutes – September 3, 2008
Aquila Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Gormley called the meeting to order at 7:01.
Commissioners Present: Gage Dennison, Maureen Gormley, Cindy Hoffman, Jim Lanenberg,
Justin Noznesky, Jim Smith, and Hans Widmer
Staff Present: Chief Luse, Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
II. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Widmer noted the date should be corrected.
Motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by
Commissioner Widmer. The minutes were approved.
IV. Golf Tournament Update
Commissioner Smith reported there were a couple more sponsors than last year. 26 golfers are
registered, a few less than last year. There are 13 hole sponsors at $200 per hole. Donations of gift
certificates and gift baskets have been received. Chair Gormley volunteered to pick up coffee (which
has been donated) the morning of the event. A BBQ lunch will be served and Commissioner Smith
would pick up food prior to the event and be reimbursed by the Crime Fund. They are still trying
to recruit more golfers.
III. Marketing Campaign Update
Lt. Harcey stated the brochure had been distributed at block parties, was available on the front desk
of the Police Department and will be sent to block captains. National Night out went well and the
police staff attended 120 parties. Over 300 pounds of food was collected for STEP.
V. New Business
Traffic/Bikes: Commissioner Widmer noted that City Council asked the Commission to consider
motorist/bicycle safety at their work session and he would like to move forward on that request.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
The Commission discussed what was currently happening and believed more education on laws and
expectations could alleviate some issues between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Possible ideas
included creating an educational handout that patrol officers could distribute and a cable access
program. A sub committee was formed and Commissioners Gormley, Widmer, Hoffman, and
Noznesky volunteered to work on the flyer and cable program.
Other: Chief Luse reported:
The Police Department held an exercise (an active shooter) at the High School, with
School and other City staff, that went well and helped them to learn a lot and test their
systems.
A Citizens Academy will be held this fall and he encouraged those commissioners who
had not attended to do so.
Graffiti had decreased after a policy was implemented last fall to document all cases
(grafitti.net). The policy requires removal and prosecution and is now being shared
with other communities.
The Emergency Response team will be attending training at Camp Ripley.
Department staffing had remained stable.
The City is discussing a permitting process for solicitors and he would like the PAC to
discuss this more in the future.
VI. Adjourn
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Smith. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM.
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4r
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 6, 2008--6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert
Kramer, Richard Person, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Larry Shapiro, Michael Silver
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of July 2, 2008 and July 16, 2008
Claudia Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes. Robert
Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
3. Hearings
A. Minnehaha Creek Restoration
Methodist Hospital Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Park Nicollet-Methodist Hospital
Location: 6500 and 6550 Excelsior Boulevard
Case No.: 08-03-CUP
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that Park Nicollet
Methodist Hospital is undertaking a project to realign Minnehaha Creek through their
property and an adjacent City-owned parcel between Louisiana Avenue and Excelsior
Boulevard. The project, along with changing the alignment of the creek, will also include
construction of a boardwalk which will tie into the hospital’s new healing garden behind the
Cancer Center. The boardwalk will also provide additional access for the public to the
wetland area for recreational and educational purposes.
Mr. Walther stated that the item for consideration is a conditional use permit for the grading
work that will be done on the site and the export of soil. The project will entail excavating a
new creek channel which is a meandering channel that will allow the creek to perform its
natural functions and improve water quality. In addition, the old creek channel will be
filled in. There will be three depressional wetlands in the old creek bed as well as a new
pond to the north of the site.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4r) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2008
Mr. Walther noted the boardwalk is proposed as part of the project, but not as part of the
conditional use permit.
Mr. Walther explained that access for the project will come from the west service dock area
of the hospital. The hauling route will occur from the Louisiana driveway, then north to
Highway 7. He said the hauling will be handled in a very condensed manner. Most of the
soils will be used on-site and moved around from the new creek bed to the old creek bed.
Approximately 81 truckloads of soils are expected to leave the site in a two-day period
toward the end of the project.
Duane Spiegle, Director of Real Estate Services, Park Nicollet Health Services spoke about
the background of the project. When PNHS built the Heart and Vascular Center in 2003-
2005 they developed a very strong relationship with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District. Interpretive artwork was created for a healing environment in the center. Rain
gardens were created, grants were received, and the relationship kept developing. Eventually
the Watershed District said the whole process PNHS was going through tied into a vision of
the Watershed. Mr. Spiegle explained that the Watershed District had been thinking about
restoring the creek to its original flow. It had changed over time from a meandering creek
in the area by the hospital to a very straight flow. Mr. Spiegle went on to say that over a
long period of time they have been working on this and are finally to the point of a project
that is completely developed and approved by most of the governmental agencies. It is
meant to be a community asset.
Commissioner Carper asked staff if the creek is currently concrete lined.
Mr. Walther responded it is not concrete lined. It has been channelized over time.
Commissioner Persons asked if this site is subject to flooding.
Mr. Walther responded it is within the floodplain and does flood periodically. He stated
that the review included the DNR and Army Corps of Engineers. A “no rise” certification
was completed which means the elevation of the floodplain will not be raised by this project.
Commissioner Persons asked if the boardwalk is on solid ground. He asked about the
footings.
Mr. Walther responded that the boardwalk itself will be on pilings so that it is raised up
above the ordinary high water level which allows some benefit for the wildlife. It would be
subject to flooding. The boardwalk is a permanent structure and could withstand that.
Chair Robertson asked about the material of the boardwalk.
Mr. Walther said it was a wood material with stainless steel cable railing.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4r) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2008
Commissioner Kramer asked staff to point out the current creek and how it became
straightened. He asked if it was naturally occurring.
Mr. Walther pointed out the creek on an aerial photo and the proposed meandering channel.
He said the straightening may have happened naturally over time. He commented that it is
not unusual in urban areas for the straightening to be man made in order to reclaim some
land.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the conditional use permit process for this project.
Mr. Walther said that the conditional use permit relates primarily to the impacts to the
streets and neighborhood during the construction period. Staff has reviewed the erosion
control plan. There will be a permitting process for the erosion control plan. The
conditional use permit review includes hours of operation, duration, and truck hauling route.
Chair Robertson asked the proposed time frame.
Mr. Walther answered that the project may begin in October. There will only be two days
of actually exporting soils from the site. He said he was not sure of the timeline for the
entire project.
Commissioner Persons asked about canoeing in the area.
Mr. Walther said there is a canoe landing just west of this area on the other side of Louisiana.
Commissioner Carper asked if the creek depth would be manageable for canoeing.
Mr. Walther responded the depth will not change from current conditions.
Commissioner Carper inquired about the measures that would be taken to prevent the creek
from going back to the former channel.
Mr. Walther said that there are measures in place. These are basically provided through
fabric covered soil and rip rap berms, and large timber logs to block and divert the water so it
does not go back into the old channel.
Chair Robertson asked about a long term maintenance program.
Mr. Walther said he was not aware of a long-term program to maintain the new channel, but
the vegetation program and plan for this area is a 3-year term.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4r) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2008
Commissioner Kramer made a motion recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit
with conditions to allow export of more than 400 cubic yards of soil at 6500 and 6550
Excelsior Boulevard.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
5-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4s
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt,
Renee Fitzgerald, Trinicia Hill, Judith Moore
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
OTHERS PRESENT: Brock Keaton, 2008 NAHRO Scholarship Award recipient
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for May, 2008
The Board minutes of May14, 2008 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Presentation of NAHRO Scholarship Certificate
Ms. Schnitker introduced Brock Keaton, 2008 NAHRO Scholarship Award recipient.
Commissioner Courtney presented Mr. Keaton with the two year, $500 scholarship
award certificate. Mr. Keaton addressed the Board, explaining his interest in business
and law.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4s) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes July 16, 2008
2
b. Election of Officers
Ms. Schnitker presented the current slate of officers. Commissioner Moore moved to
approve the current slate of officers as Chair, Catherine Courtney, Vice-Chair, Steve
Fillbrandt, and Secretary, Renee Fitzgerald. Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0.
c. Approval of Amendment to the Occupancy Policy Late Fee Rent Policy,
Resolution No. 573
Ms. Schnitker explained staff’s proposal to increase the late fee to $35 from $20, and the
rent due date to the 5th of the month from the 10th of the month. Staff feels these
changes will act as a deterrent to paying rent late and result in a reduced administrative
burden required to process late notices. After discussion, Commissioner Fillbrandt
requested that staff track and report back to the Board the results of the changes.
Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 573, Resolution of the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Amending the Public Housing Leasing and
Occupancy Plan, Part Five, III, Fees and Charges, Increasing the Late Rent Fee and
Changing the Date that the Late Fee is Assessed. Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Contract Approval for Architectural Services for the Capital Fund Program
Ms. Schlegel reported that based on staff analysis and HUD’s recommendations, it was
determined that the smaller capital improvement items will be administered by HA staff;
however, the larger and more complex items will be administered by an architect. The
HA has renegotiated a reasonable fee with Studio Five Architects. Commissioner
Fillbrandt moved to approve the contract with Studio Five Architects for architectural
services for the upcoming capital improvement work, at a base fee of $23,379, plus up to
$3,000 for reimbursables, for a total fee of $26,379. Commissioner Moore seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
e. Scattered Site Slide Presentation
Ms. Schlegel presented a slide show on several scattered site properties.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List June and July – 2008
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 4s) Page 3
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes July 16, 2008
3
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report June and July – 2008
2. Development Report
3. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
4. Draft Financial Statements – Report
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending Sections 4-81 through 4-89 concerning
dogs and set second reading for October 6, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend City ordinance Sections 4-81 through 4-89 to achieve
alignment with changes made by the Minnesota legislature relative to dangerous and potentially
dangerous dogs?
Does the City Council wish to amend City ordinance Sections 4-81 through 4-89 to clarify existing
code provisions dealing with dog impoundment procedures, leash length and the term “service
dogs”?
BACKGROUND:
Staff met with the City Council at several study sessions during the past five months to discuss the
need for changes in our ordinance concerning the regulation of dogs. The Minnesota legislature has
made changes related to “dangerous” and “potentially dangerous” dogs, and the proposed ordinance
creates alignment with state law including definitions, behaviors and requirements. In addition,
Council asked staff to research the existence of off leash voice command ordinances, leash length and
terminology related to guide/service dogs.
On September 8, 2008, staff reported back to Council with the research results and provided a draft
of the ordinance including language requested for off leash voice control. Council directed that the
off leash voice control language be deleted from Section 4-84 (b)(2), that changes be made regarding
service dogs, and that the ordinance then be brought forward for first reading.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
ORDINANCE NO. ____ -08
ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 4 OF
THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
CONCERNING DOGS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Sections 4-81 through 4-89 are hereby amended by deleting and adding the
language as follows:
Sec. 4-81. Purpose.
The purpose of this Article is to enact regulations governing dogs, dangerous dogs,
potentially dangerous dogs, and to provide for dog enforcement procedures.
Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council.
The City Council of the City makes the following findings of fact regarding the need to
regulate and license dogs:
(a) The regulation of dogs is found by the City Council to be necessary in order to protect the
health and safety of the community. Dogs at large can expose human beings and other
animals to danger; can cause damage to public and private property; can exacerbate the
existing overpopulation of dogs; can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential areas and
parks; and can expose human beings and other animals to unsanitary and unhealthy
conditions.
(b) The improper impoundment or enclosure of dogs can constitute a public health nuisance.
Nuisances can be created by site, odor, noise, and sanitation problems associated with
improper dog enclosures and impound facilities.
(c) The regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is deemed necessary by the City
in light of the threat such dogs pose to the safety of human beings and other animals in the
community. Dogs deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous pose a serious risk to
the health and safety of the community.
(d) Procedures for determining whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous to the
community are warranted. The procedures prescribed herein balance the interest in
immediate public protection from dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs with reasonable
due process rights of dog owners.
Sec. 4-83. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Animal Control Authority means the city police officers, community service officers, and the
animal control officer.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
Dangerous dog means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public
or private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog
is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of
humans or domestic animals.
Dog means any male or female of any breed of a domesticated dog.
Great bodily harm has the meaning given to it under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8.
Own means to keep, harbor, or have control, charge, or custody of a dog.
Owner means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing,
harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog.
Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private
property;
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle,
upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog
owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack;
(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing
injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen
or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the
elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house,
garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or
structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that
prevent the dog from exiting.
Provocation means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or
bite.
Substantial bodily harm means bodily injury that involves a temporary or permanent but
substantial disfigurement, or which causes temporary or permanent but substantial loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily
member.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations.
(a) License. All dogs shall be licensed in compliance with section 8-626. The license tag must
be displayed on the dog at all times.
(b) Dogs running at large.
(1) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog shall allow the dog to run at large
within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after
obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance.
(2) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the
person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person
or a designee. “Under control” means the dog is controlled by a leash no more than
twenty (20) feet long, which is shortened to six (6) feet when another person or
animal is within twenty (20) feet.
(3) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence,
including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a
person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non-
domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person.
(c) Barking dogs. No person shall own, harbor, keep or possess any dog that by loud and
frequent barking, howling or yelping, causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons
residing in the vicinity of the dog.
(d) Certain dogs declared a public nuisance. Every dog that runs at large or barks or causes
disturbance, annoyance or noise in violation of any provision of subsections (b) or (c) of this
section is hereby declared a public nuisance, and it is unlawful to own, harbor or keep such a
dog.
(e) Removal of excrement.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public
or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at
the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission
of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by
that person.
(2) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property,
public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement
left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that
person.
(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to dogs when used by the city in
connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the
permission of the city.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(f) General duty of owners. Every owner of a dog must exercise reasonable care and take all
necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property and animals from injuries
or damage that might result from the dog’s behavior, regardless of whether such behavior is
motivated by playfulness or ferocity.
Sec. 4-85. Animal boarding facility.
The city council shall from time to time designate a place as the city animal boarding facility
where suitable arrangements are made for keeping and maintaining any domesticated animals that
may be seized or taken into custody by any officer of the city pursuant to this article.
Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures.
(a) Impoundment of dogs. The Animal Control Authority may impound any dogs found in the
city without a tag or found running at large, harbored or kept contrary to any provisions of
this article.
(b) Notice. The Animal Control Authority shall, without delay, notify the owner,
personally or through the United States mail, if the owner is known to the Animal
Control Authority or can be ascertained with reasonable effort.
(c) Redemption of impounded dogs. Any impounded dog shall be kept for five (5) regular
business days by the city. For the purpose of this section, “regular business day” means a
day during which the Animal Control Authority having custody of the dog is open to
the public at least four consecutive hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The owner
may redeem the dog by payment to the city treasurer of the current dog license fee, plus a
penalty of an amount set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, and an
impounding fee according to the following schedule:
(1) When any one person has had a dog picked up and impounded one or more times
during any consecutive 12-month period, the impounding charges shall be as set
from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance.
(2) In addition to the charges required under subsection (1) of this section, a sum for
each day, as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, will be
charged for board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is impounded.
The boarding fees may be paid on authorization of the city council to its agent,
pursuant to any contract currently in effect providing for the impounding of dogs
within the city and its kennels.
(d) Impounded dogs not reclaimed. If the owner does not reclaim the dog impounded under
this section within five (5) regular business days after impounding, the dog will be disposed
of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. The owner will be responsible for the costs of
confiscation, boarding, and destruction.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(e) Records. The Animal Control Authority must maintain the following records of the dogs
in custody and preserve the records for at least six (6) months:
(1) the description of the breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing
traits;
(2) the location at which the animal was seized;
(3) the date of seizure;
(4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age
or over was received; and
(5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or
over was transferred.
Sec. 4-87. Destruction of Dogs in Certain Circumstances.
(a) Certain dogs may be destroyed. Upon notice to the owner and an opportunity for a hearing,
a dog may be seized and destroyed in a proper and humane manner upon a finding of any of
the following:
(1) the dog has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on
property of persons other than the owner;
(2) the dog is a public nuisance as defined by section 4-84(d); or
(3) if the owner is in violation of quarantine under section 4-2, the dog may be seized
and impounded, and destroyed at the end of the quarantine period.
(b) Request for hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice that the Animal Control
Authority seeks to destroy the dog, the owner of the dog may request a hearing on the
destruction. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will
terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this section.
(c) Hearing procedure.
(1) A hearing must be held fourteen (14) days after receipt of the request.
(2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or other impartial city employee or
person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means
that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original
determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed.
(3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form
of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority
officer are admissible without further foundation.
(4) The City Manager or designee shall make a determination whether the dog shall be
destroyed. The decision is final and there is no right to further administrative appeal.
Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs.
(a) Determination of dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall
determine that a dog is a dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's
professional judgment that the dog has:
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public
or private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or
(3) been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog, and after the owner has notice
that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers
the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(b) Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was
sustained by a person:
(1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises
occupied by the owner of the dog;
(2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown
to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or
(3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
(c) Destruction of dangerous dog. Upon a declaration by an Animal Control Authority officer
that a dog is dangerous pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347, the dog shall be
impounded immediately if the Authority intends to seek the dog’s destruction pursuant to
this subsection and Minn. Stat. § 347.56.
(1) Circumstances. A dog may be destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the
Animal Control Authority if the dog:
(a) inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a human on public or private
property without provocation;
(b) inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property in the same
attack without provocation;
(c) bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack
without provocation; or
(d) bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack
where more than one dog participated in the attack.
(2) Notice. The Animal Control Authority must provide notice of its intention to
destroy a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(3) Appeal and hearing procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure shall be as set
forth in subsections (f) and (g) of this section.
(d) Notice of dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer
that a dog is dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Animal Control Authority shall provide
a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a
copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the
property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include:
(1) a description of the dog deemed to be dangerous; the authority for and purpose of
the dangerous dog declaration and seizure, if applicable; the time, place, and
circumstances under which the dog was declared dangerous; and if seized, the
telephone number and contact person where the dog is kept, if seized;
(2) the name of the officer making the determination;
(3) a statement as to whether the dog’s destruction is being sought by the City pursuant
to subsection (c) of this section and Minn. Stat. § 347.56;
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(4) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under
subsection (e) of this section;
(5) a statement of the criminal penalties for violating requirements pertaining to
dangerous dogs;
(6) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the
dangerous dog declaration and, if applicable, prior potentially dangerous dog
declarations for the dog, and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection;
(7) a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14) days of the notice,
the owners must immediately comply with the requirements of subsections (e) (3)
and (8) and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion;
(8) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the
owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of that decision to comply with
subsection (e) and all other requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51,
347.515, and 347.52;
(9) a form to request a hearing under this section; and
(10) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the seized dog
are the responsibility of the person claiming an interest in the dog, except to the
extent that a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not
substantially justified by law.
(e) Dangerous dog requirements. If an Animal Control Authority officer does not order the
destruction of the dog pursuant to subsection (c), within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the
notice that the dog has been declared dangerous, the owner must:
(1) register the dog as a dangerous dog, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.51 in the city and
renew the registration annually until the dog is deceased. The owner shall pay the fee
set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance;
(2) license the dog as a dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis;
(3) keep the dog at all times, while on the owner’s property, in a proper enclosure;
(4) secure surety coverage or liability insurance as required by Minn. Stat. § 347.51,
subd. 2(2), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous
dog;
(5) if the dog is outside the proper enclosure, keep the dog muzzled and restrained by a
substantial leash or chain and under the physical restraint of a responsible person.
The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any
person or animal, but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision
or respiration;
(6) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City with
the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number;
(7) have the dog sterilized at the owner’s expense. If the owner does not have the animal
sterilized within 30 days, the Animal Control Authority shall seize the dog and have
it sterilized at the owner’s expense;
(8) notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer
to a new location where the dog will reside within 30 days of the death or transfer
and execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog’s
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the
person to whom the dog has been transferred or the address where the dog has been
relocated;
(9) for a person who transfers ownership of a dangerous dog, notify the new owner that
the Animal Control Authority has identified the dog as dangerous. The current
owner must also notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the transfer or
ownership and provide the Animal Control Authority with the new owner’s name,
address, and telephone number;
(10) for a person who owns a dangerous dog and who rents property from another where
the dog will reside, disclose to the property owner prior to entering a lease agreement
and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will
reside at the property;
(11) post a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property,
including a warning symbol to inform children; and
(12) affix to the dog’s collar at all times, a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying
the dog as dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol.
(f) Appeal of the dangerous dog designation or destruction of dog. The owner of any dog
declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer. The owner of
the dog may request in writing a hearing on the designation or on the destruction within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice. Failure to timely appeal the determination will
terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under subsection (g).
The owner’s request for a hearing must be submitted on a form to the City Clerk. The form
will be provided by the City Clerk. The form must contain the following information:
(1) the full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person
requesting an appeal;
(2) the full name and address of all of the dog’s owners;
(3) the ownership interest of the person requesting the appeal;
(4) the names of any witnesses to be called at the hearing;
(5) a list and copies of all exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and
(6) a summary statement as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous.
(g) Hearing procedure.
(1) Any hearing must be held within fourteen (14) days of the request to determine the
validity of the dangerous dog declaration or destruction of a dangerous dog. The city
shall mail written notice of the hearing to the owner requesting the hearing to the
address provided on the request and to any person who was in the past a victim of
the actions of the dog that is the subject of the hearing.
(2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or designee or other impartial city
employee or an impartial person designated by the City Manager to conduct the
hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct
involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the
dog should be destroyed.
(3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form
of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority
officer are admissible without further foundation.
(4) The City Manager or designee shall make written findings of fact and reach a written
conclusion as to whether the dog is a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section or whether the dog is subject to destruction under subsection (c) and
Minn. Stat. § 347.56 within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision must be
delivered to the dog’s owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical
and a copy must be provided to the Animal Control Authority.
(5) The decision of the City Manager or designee is final without any further right of
administrative appeal. An aggrieved party may obtain review thereof by petitioning
the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari not more than thirty (30)
days after service of the City Manager or designee’s written decision.
(6) In the event that the dangerous dog declaration is upheld by the hearing officer,
actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of $1,000 will be the responsibility
of the dog’s owner.
(h) Annual review of dangerous dog designation.
(1) Beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may request
annually that the city review the designation by serving upon the city a written
request for review that includes the full name, address and telephone numbers of the
requestor, a list of the names and addresses of all owners of the dog, and a summary
of the basis for the claimed change in the dog’s behavior. The owner must submit
the fee as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance along with the
request for review.
(2) If the Animal Control Authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has
changed, the Authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation.
(i) Violation of dangerous dog requirements.
(1) The Animal Control Authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if:
(a) after fourteen (14) days the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the
dog is not validly registered pursuant to subsection (e)(1) and Minn. Stat. §
347.51;
(b) after fourteen (14) days after the owner has notice the dog is dangerous, the
owner does not secure the proper liability insurance or surety coverage
pursuant to subsection (e)(4) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2;
(c) the dog is not maintained in a proper enclosure pursuant to subsection (e)(3)
and Minn. Stat. § 347.52;
(d) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a
responsible person pursuant to subsection (e)(5) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52;
or
(e) the dog is not sterilized within thirty (30) days pursuant to subsection (e)(7)
and Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d)
(2) If the owner of the dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally
seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and
humane manner and the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and
destroying the dog.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(3) The dangerous dog may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of impounding
and boarding fees as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance and
presenting proof to the Animal Control Authority that the dangerous dog
requirements will be met. A dangerous dog not reclaimed within seven (7) days may
be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable for
all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog.
(4) If the owner has been convicted for violating dangerous dog requirements and the
owner is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must
be seized by the Animal Control Authority. If the owner is convicted for the crime
for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a
proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs of confining and destroying
the dog. If the owner is not convicted and the dog is not reclaimed within seven (7)
days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be
disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3.
(j) Ownership restrictions.
(1) Dog ownership prohibited. Except as provided for in subsection (3), no person may
own a dog if the person has:
(a) been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of Minnesota Statutes,
sections 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52;
(b) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.205(4);
(c) been convicted of a gross misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd.
1;
(d) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 2; or
(e) had a dog ordered destroyed under Minn. Stat. § 347.56 and been convicted
of one or more violations of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515,
347.52, or 609.226, subd. 2
(2) Household members. If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a
dog in subsection (1), unless specifically approved with or without restrictions by an
Animal Control Authority, no person in the household is permitted to own a dog.
For purposes of this section, a “household” means any group of persons living
together as one housekeeping unit.
(3) Dog ownership prohibition review. Beginning three (3) years after a conviction
under subsection (1) that prohibits a person from owning a dog, and annually
thereafter, the person may request that the animal control authority review the
prohibition. The Animal Control Authority may consider such facts as the
seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal
convictions, or other facts that the Animal Control Authority deems appropriate.
The Animal Control Authority may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it
with limitations. The Animal Control Authority also may establish conditions a
person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including, but not limited to,
successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses. If the Animal Control
Authority rescinds a person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply
with any limitations imposed by the Animal Control Authority or the person is
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
convicted of any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the
Animal Control Authority may permanently prohibit the person from owning a dog
in this state.
Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs.
(a) Determination of potentially dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer
shall determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon
the officer's professional judgment that a dog has:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicted bites on a human or domestic animal on public or
private property;
(2) when unprovoked, chased or approached a person, including a person on a bicycle,
upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog
owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(b) Notice of potentially dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control
Authority officer that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Authority
shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by
posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing
on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include:
(1) a description of the dog deemed to be potentially dangerous; the authority for and
purpose of the potentially dangerous dog declaration; the time, place, and
circumstances under which the dog was declared potentially dangerous;
(2) the identity of officer who has made the determination;
(3) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under
subsection (c) of this section;
(4) a notice that if the dog endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals again, it
will be considered a dangerous dog;
(5) the criminal penalties for violation of the requirements pertaining to potentially
dangerous dogs; and
(6) a statement the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the potentially
dangerous dog declaration and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection.
(c) Potentially dangerous dog requirements. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice
that the dog has been declared potentially dangerous, the owner must:
(1) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the
manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the
Animal Control Authority within fourteen (14) days of the designation; and
(2) register and license the dog as a potentially dangerous dog and photograph the dog
on an annual basis.
(d) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure for a potentially
dangerous dog shall be as set forth in section 4-88(f) and (g) relating to dangerous dogs.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
Sec. 4-90. Complaint procedures.
Any person may file a complaint of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog as defined
in this chapter with the Animal Control Authority.
SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its
publication.
First Reading September 15, 2008
Second Reading October 6, 2008
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Final Plat with easement variances and Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) approval for a five story mixed use building with commercial uses on the
ground floor and senior residential on the upper floors with conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission and Staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
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.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to construct a five story, mixed use, senior residential housing complex at
the southeast corner of 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South. The building is proposed to
include 156 senior dwelling units on the second through fifth floors, and approximately 26,000
square feet of commercial space along 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
The proposal 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 any services. Services may be added as their health requires.
Services range from monitoring medication to complete memory care. A facility such as this has
many advantages such as the ability to keep couples and friends together in the same building, even
though each individual’s health changes, requiring greater or specialized care. The proposed
dwelling units break down into the following categories:
“Independent Living” units occupied by people who do not need care or services offered by the
facility. Independent living units are essentially apartment units. The occupants may own a car and
can come and go without restrictions. There are proposed to be a total of 66 independent living
units located on the fourth and fifth floors.
“Assisted Living” units occupied by seniors who need or request additional services. Residents in
these units may come and go and may own a car. There are proposed to be 56 assisted living units
located on the third and fourth floors.
“Memory Care” units occupied by seniors who need specialized care for memory related diseases.
The occupants have limited access to the second floor only and will not own a car. There are 32
memory care units proposed on the second floor.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
“Guest Suites” are dwelling units available to guests on a temporary basis. There are two guest suites
proposed on the second floor.
The proposed commercial uses consist of uses that are open to the public, and some that are open to
the residents only. The proposed commercial uses are as follows:
Uses open to the general public. These uses would be located primarily along 36th Street:
• 8,000 square foot grocery store
• 2,300 square foot deli (Includes sidewalk seating at the corner of 36th and Wooddale.)
• 850 square foot fitness center
• 600 square foot salon
• Lobby & pedestrian corridor
Uses open to residents only. These uses would be located along Wooddale Avenue:
• 4,200 square foot dining area.
• 1,600 square foot club room
• 1,400 square foot office
• 2,300 square foot community room
• Lobby & lounge
Previous Use:
In 2001 Quadion Corp. closed its manufacturing facility at 3630 Wooddale Avenue. Quadion
owned property on both sides of Wooddale Ave, south of 36th Street, including the subject
property. In 2003, the buildings were removed, and the west side was redeveloped by Rottlund
Corp. as Village in the Park I (VIP I). In 2005, Rottlund submitted a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary PUD application to redevelop the east side (subject property) with a mixed use senior
building known as Village in the Park II (VIP II). The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD was
approved, however, Rottlund withdrew the applications for Final Plat and Final PUD, and the
preliminary approvals have expired. The subject property was reguided and rezoned from industrial
to mixed-use in August, 2003, in conformance with the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, &
Transportation Study completed in January 2003.
VIP I
SITE
Quadian site
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Zoning Analysis:
The proposal meets most requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Some exceptions may be
approved as outlined in the Mixed Use Zoning District (MX) and the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance if the City concludes they meet the intent and criteria
outlined in the MX and PUD provisions.
Residential Density:
There are 156 residential units proposed. 32 of the units, however, 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 124 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 124 dwelling
units were counted.
Parking:
The proposal is a mixed use development that includes reductions in parking. Proposed are 178
parking stalls which reflect a 14% reduction from the required 206 spaces.
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use Mixed-use/Residential Mixed-use/Residential Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acre site 2.13 acre site Yes
Density
50 units per acre
75 units per acre
(with conditions)
58 units per acre Yes
Height N/A 64 feet Yes
Off-Street Parking Required 216
(Up to 30% reduction allowed.)
Provided 178
(Represents 14% reduction)
Yes
(See parking discussion
below)
Setbacks PUD modifications are requested – See analysis below. Yes
Non-Residential
Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.78 Yes
Ground Floor Area
Ratio N/A 0.39 Yes
Open Area/DORA 9,306 sf (12%) 20.478 sf (26%) Yes
Trees No existing trees 37 Trees
19 Ornamental trees 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 September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
As illustrated in the table to the left, per the zoning ordinance,
the proposed uses require a total of 206 parking spaces. The
MX district allows the City Council to reduce the required
parking by up to 30% if the proposal utilizes shared parking
between the uses. A full 30% reduction would reduce the
required parking to 144 spaces. (This is shown for illustrative
purposes only, the applicant is not asking for the full 30%
reduction.)
The applicant proposes a total of 178 parking spaces consisting
of 112 underground spaces, 41 covered spaces at ground level
along Yosemite Ave, six on-street spaces along Wooddale Ave,
10 on-street spaces along 36th St, and nine on-street spaces
along Yosemite Ave. Approximately 60 underground spaces
would be for the private use of the residents and assisted living
facility staff, the remaining 52 underground spaces would be
available to commercial tenant staff, customers, and guests of
the residents.
The owner of the adjacent property raised concerns that their will not be sufficient parking available
for his business. The proposed parking improved over the approved Preliminary PUD by increasing
the number of parking stalls from 176 to 178 spaces and decreasing the amount of parking required
per zoning from 212 to 206 spaces. The required parking was decreased by reducing the size of the
café from 3,300 to 2,300 square feet. The changes to parking include two fewer spaces in the at-
grade structured parking, and four additional on-street spaces. Two on 36th St, and two on Yosemite
Ave. In addition to the public on-street parking, the applicant is also willing to make the 41 at grade
structured parking spaces located adjacent to Yosemite Ave available to the general public. A
condition was added to the recommended resolution requiring these spaces to be available to the
public.
The applicant also raised concerns about the volume of traffic on Yosemite Ave resulting from
deliveries and customers and employees of the proposed facility. The guests, visitors and employees
of the residential facility will be using the below grade parking which does not utilize Yosemite Ave
for access, and therefore, cannot increase traffic on Yosemite Ave. The employees and customers of
Required # Of Spaces
32 memory care
residential units 6
124 senior units 124
Restaurant 2,300 sf
(Deli/Coffee shop) 38
Commercial (9,450 sf) 38
Minimum Required
without reductions 206
Maximum allowed
reduction – 30% (62)
Possible Minimum 144
Proposed # Of Spaces
Underground spaces 112
At grade structured
parking 41
on-street parking 25
Total provided 178
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
the commercial uses also may use the below grade parking if they desire. Yosemite Ave is a public
right-of-way that is used for access to the alley behind the adjacent property, and parking for the
adjacent properties. It will continue to be used in this manner, with the only change being that it
will also provide access to the 41 at grade public parking spaces. Deliveries will be made to the
proposed facility from Yosemite Ave. The deliveries, however, will be made before 9 am, so they will
not conflict with customer and employee parking.
The owner of the adjacent property asked that the access to the 41 structured parking spaces be
made directly and only from 36th Street. This would require a new driveway to 36th Street located
approximately 25 feet from the 36th St/Yosemite Ave intersection. A driveway in such close
proximity to an intersection involving an arterial road such as 36th St, however, does not meet code
requirements and raises safety and traffic flow concerns, and is therefore, not recommended.
Architectural Style and Materials
The building design is consistent with the principles set forth in the Elmwood Area Land Use,
Transit and Transportation Study, including:
• It is proposed to be built up to the right-of-way to create a “Main Street” character.
• It is proposed to be a vertical mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor.
• On-street parking for commercial uses is provided on 36th Street.
In accordance with these principles, the building is proposed to be located approximately eight feet
from the property line along Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street, commercial uses are proposed to be
located on the ground floor, parking for the residents is located underground, and commercial
parking is proposed along both 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
The building accommodates pedestrian access by lobby entrances on both Wooddale Avenue and
36th Street. The lobby provides access to the residential portion of the building, the grocery store,
café and other commercial uses. The grocery store is proposed to take up the entire commercial
frontage along Wooddale Avenue, however, the building is designed so that the commercial space
can be split into several commercial tenants in the future, each with direct customer access to the
sidewalk along Wooddale Avenue. Commercial uses will be accessible from both the lobby and the
sidewalk. This approach is consistent with both the City’s goal of walkable streets, and residents’
need for access without leaving the building.
The building is designed with three focal points. The main focal point is the plaza at the corner of
Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street. The building wall at the intersection is proposed to be concave
to establish a design connection between the building, plaza and art. The building wall, landscaped
islands, concrete scoring and the public art will all follow the same curvilinear pattern. The other
two focal points are at both lobby entrances along Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street. A resident
pick-up/drop-off is proposed at the Wooddale Avenue lobby entrance.
The trash is proposed to be managed inside the building, and all deliveries would be made from
Yosemite Ave.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Streetscape & Plaza:
The city hired a consultant to design the streetscape and plaza. The consultant is in the process of
working with the city, applicant and the artists of the Dream Elevator and 36th Street art to finalize a
plaza design. (See Public Art below.) While the design shown on the site plans is illustrative only, it
contains the elements expected to be included in the final design, such as on-street parking,
boulevard trees, landscaped islands, benches, streetlights and public art. Also, at the request of the
Planning Commission, the plan provides 24 bicycle parking spaces added along 36th Street. The
developer will be paying for the construction of the plaza. The City will be responsible for paying
for the Dream Elevator to be located in the plaza.
Public Art:
The artist, Randy Walker was awarded the contract for creating the art to be located at the
intersection of Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street. Mr. Walker proposed a sculpture called “The
Dream Elevator”, which is a 40 foot tall cylindrical structure inspired by the Nordic Ware grain
elevator. The Dream Elevator is shown on the site plans at the very tip of the plaza. Additional art
is proposed along the entire 36th Street corridor between Wooddale Avenue and Highway 100. This
art is proposed by Marjorie Pits, and will consist of benches, bollards and planters.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The DORA is satisfied by the courtyard located in the center of the building. City code requires at
least 12% of the site be set aside for DORA. Twelve percent of this site is 9,306 square feet, and the
proposed courtyard is 20,000 square feet (26% of the site). The DORA is proposed to be nicely
landscaped with a central water feature. The site meets the DORA requirement.
Stormwater:
The stormwater will flow to the regional pond at Hoigaard Village. The developer will contribute
financially to the cost of the pond.
Setbacks:
In a PUD, buildings may be set up to the property line. However, the developer is providing some
setback to maintain the character of the neighborhood as outlined in the Elmwood Area Land Use,
Transit, and Transportation Study. Particular attention was paid to setbacks along Wooddale
Avenue and 36th Street by comparing them to previously approved projects. The chart below
compares the proposed Wooddale Pointe street side setbacks to the VIP I, Hoigaard Village,
Excelsior & Grand developments, and the setbacks proposed with the VIP II proposal that was
withdrawn. The proposed setbacks are in line with these projects, particularly those located along
36th Street West.
Setback Wooddale
Pointe
VIP II
(withdrawn)
VIP I Hoigaard
Village
Excelsior
& Grand
Building to street curb 29 feet 26 feet 18 feet 26 - 40 feet 22 feet
Building to on-street
parking curb 19 feet 16 feet N/A 26 feet 15 feet
Building to property line 8 feet 5 feet 15 feet 14 – 19 feet 5 feet
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Final Plat:
The final plat consists of 1 lot, an outlot, and dedication of additional right-of-way to both 36th
Street and Wooddale Avenue. The outlot would be deeded to the city for park and future right-of-
way needs. The Dream Elevator and the majority of the plaza are proposed to be located in the
outlot.
Right-of-Way Dedication:
A road easement was dedicated in 1975 over the north 19 feet of the entire subject parcel (along
36th Street). The final plat proposes to dedicate the area as right-of-way.
As part of the final plat approval for Village in the Park I (VIP I), the developer dedicated a 12 foot
road easement along the east side of Wooddale Avenue. This easement would also be removed and
dedicated as right of way with the plat.
In both cases, the additional right-of-way was required to facilitate planned street improvements and
on-street parking.
Utility Easements:
Due to the small size of the parcel, the close proximity of the building to 36th Street, Wooddale
Avenue and Yosemite Avenue, and the fact that the property is bounded nearly on all sides by public
right-of-way with 8 – 18 foot wide sidewalks within the right-of-way, staff has determined that
drainage and utility easements are not needed along Wooddale Avenue, 36th Street and Yosemite
Avenue. Therefore, staff recommends a variance to omit drainage and utility easements along those
streets.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2008. A copy of the
minutes of that meeting is attached for your review. The Planning Commission recommended
approval (6-0 vote) of the Final Plat with easement variances and recommended approval (5-1 vote)
of the Final PUD.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Strategic Direction areas of: Gathering Spaces, Transportation, Sidewalk and Trails, Diverse
Housing Stock, and Environment are addressed by having a mixed use building occupied with retail
and service uses and providing for a variety of senior housing needs, in a manner consistent with the
pedestrian-oriented vision of 36th Street.
Attachments: Draft Resolution – Final Plat
Draft Resolution –Final PUD
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Site plan and related documents
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
RESOLUTION 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 September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
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.
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.
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 be paid prior to the city signing the final plat.
e. Trail dedication of $24,900 be paid prior to the city signing the final plat.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval
on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in
Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing
of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties
above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further
formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
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, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on July 14, 2008, Resolution
No. 08-093; and
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on July 25, 2008 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of
September 3, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 5-1
vote with five members voting in the affirmative and one member voting opposed, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in
the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Greco Real Estate Development, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Planned
Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the MX-
Mixed Use District located at 3601 Wooddale Avenue South for the legal description as follows, 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.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
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
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 08-21-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, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause
serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values.
The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications
include:
a. A 14% reduction in the required parking.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 08-21-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set
forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits.
2. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with approved exhibits.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set
forth above and subject to the following conditions:
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 residential units.
b. A minimum of 153 structured parking spaces.
c. A 14% reduction from the required parking spaces to allow 178 parking spaces instead of the
required 206 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:
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 underground parking spaces shall be restricted to residents 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:
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
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.
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.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development agreement
shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
3. Hearings Unofficial Minutes – Planning Commission – September 3, 2008
A. Final Plat with easement variances and Final PUD – Wooddale Pointe
Location: 3601 Wooddale Avenue
Applicant: Greco Real Estate
Case No.: 08-26-S and 08-21-PUD
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented the staff report.
The applicant proposes to construct a five story, mixed use, senior residential housing complex at the southeast
corner of 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South. The building is proposed to include 156 senior
dwelling units on the second through fifth floors, and approximately 26,000 square feet of commercial space
along 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue. Mr. Morrison said the development will have 178 parking stalls
which is two more spaces than were approved under the preliminary PUD. There will be 25 on-street
parking spaces. Four spaces were added since preliminary PUD by adding two spaces along 36th Street and
two spaces along Yosemite Ave. Mr. Morrison spoke about the public plaza at 36th St. and Wooddale which
will contain significant public art and a sidewalk seating café.
Mr. Morrison said the final plat will dedicate a 19 foot road right-of-way along 36th St. and a 12 foot road
right-of-way along Wooddale Ave. Staff has recommended a variance to omit drainage and utility easements
along Wooddale Ave., 36th Street, and Yosemite Ave.
Commissioner Carper asked about deliveries and the grocery store fronting on Wooddale Ave.
Mr. Morrison answered that the conditions of approval state quick deliveries could utilize on-street parking,
but the bulk of deliveries will come along Yosemite Ave. at the east side of the building. Likewise deliveries
made to the café would be made in the same area, down an interior corridor and into the café.
Commissioner Carper asked about senior housing and the need for space for emergency service vehicles.
Mr. Morrison spoke about access and parking for those vehicles in a drop off area.
Commissioner Person asked about differences between the preliminary and final plans.
Mr. Morrison spoke about additional on-street parking, easements added to the plat, structured parking
changes to keep trash handling inside, and dwelling units increased from 151 to 156.
Commissioner Kramer said he was concerned about the effect of parking on Yosemite Ave. to the Luggage
World business. He asked if there would be any restrictions on that parking.
Mr. Morrison said no restrictions are contemplated at this time. The only restrictions that could come at some
point in the future are typically made at the request of property owners and would be limited on how long a car
can be parked. The City does not reserve public parking spaces for specific users. Mr. Morrison went on to say
that the 41 spaces inside the new building are also open to the public. There are also 10 public spaces along
36th Street.
Brent Rogers, representing Greco Real Estate, introduced the development team.
Commissioner Robertson opened the public hearing.
Adeel Saad, owner of Luggage World, spoke about his objections voiced at preliminary approval about traffic
going through the very narrow area on Yosemite. He mentioned the handicapped ramp right against Luggage
World which makes that area very narrow. He said he continues to object to deliveries being made to the
entire huge building at that very narrow space. He said it will be a huge traffic hazard and will be impossible
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
for any of his customers to park. His recommendation was and still is that access and delivery occur
somewhere other than this very small space.
Chair Robertson asked staff if there are assurances from City engineers that there is enough parking space for
Luggage World.
Mr. Morrison said there is a standard right-of-way along Yosemite Ave., about 66 feet. The parking spaces
themselves are 18 ft. deep on both sides. The aisle in-between is about 24 ft. which is standard width. It is a
pretty standard lay-out with plenty of room for turning in and out and plenty of room for deliveries. Deliveries
will occur early in the morning so there shouldn’t be any conflicts between deliveries and customer traffic.
Commissioner Kramer asked if Yosemite Ave. is an active street.
Mr. Morrison said he didn’t see it as an active street as it is a dead-end connecting with a 14 foot public alley
behind the Luggage World building. He illustrated connections in that area to the ramp and development.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person asked about a roadway on the plat that extends south of Yosemite.
Mr. Morrison said that was a private drive located on the Burlington Coat Factory property.
Commissioner Person asked about the location of Luggage World and Burlington Coat Factory loading docks.
Mr. Morrison said Luggage World deliveries were made at the back side of the building along the alley.
Burlington Coat factory receives their deliveries from the back of their building further south.
Commissioner Kramer commented that as there are more and more developments he wanted to raise the
question of noise pollution and emergency sirens, especially when there is a concentration of medical calls. He
asked if there have been any discussions about limiting sirens.
Mr. Morrison responded that the sirens are required.
Commissioner Kramer asked that somehow this issue be included in future discussions.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the parking and access questions had been answered for her. She said
she likes the project and she is very pleased to see it going in on the corner.
Chair Robertson stated that generally he likes the project but from the beginning it hasn’t felt like a mixed-use
project. He said it is virtually a single use project with some accessory uses that are labeled as commercial. It
doesn’t meet the intent of mixed-use.
Commissioner Carper asked the Chair to elaborate.
Chair Robertson said he understands the idea of mixed-use development to create and maintain a vibrancy to
an area. People are living, working and shopping in such a development with ground floor neighborhood
commercial and upper floors residential. He said a lot of the ground floor of Wooddale Pointe is parking lot
and residential facility uses.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if this parcel shouldn’t be taken in context with the entire Elmwood
development.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe
Commissioner Kramer asked why this point is being discussed again without any major changes to the final
plans. He asked if the commercial areas will be clearly geared toward the public.
Mr. Morrison said the grocery store, deli, fitness center and beauty salon all have direct access to the street and
plaza. The uses will have awnings and will be clearly signed for public use. Similar concerns were heard with
an earlier proposal (Village in the Park II) and at preliminary review of Wooddale Pointe. The final plans have
more commercial at the corner and no housing units on the ground floor. Staff feels Wooddale Pointe is more
in keeping with the activity of mixed-use which is intended for the Elmwood area. Grocery and deli uses are
not only daytime uses but evening uses.
Commissioner Kramer asked if businesses would be leased.
Brent Rogers said Greco will manage the commercial portions of the project and Southview will manage the
residential. The intent is that the commercial will be rented by outside businesses.
Link Wilson, architect, said there is a 58% common area between uses. He spoke about current
demographics. Neighborhoods used to be named after elementary schools. With today’s demographics more
and more neighborhoods will be defined by a senior living facility.
Chair Robertson asked if one of the uses doesn’t make it, will the space be open to any other commercial
establishment.
Mr. Rogers said yes it would be.
Chair Robertson said he has mentioned his concerns about the intent of mixed use so as not to set a precedent
for future developments.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat with a variance to eliminate
drainage and utility easements along Wooddale Ave., 36th Street W., and Yosemite Ave. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the Wooddale Pointe Final Planned Unit
Development. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-1
(Robertson opposed).
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 20
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 21
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 22
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 23
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 24
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 25
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 26
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 27
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 28
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 29
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 30
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Final Plat with Easement Variances and Final Planned Unit Development for Wooddale Pointe Page 31
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
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:
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
3408, 3412 France Avenue; 3409, 3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue
Case No.: 08-27-CP
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from RM – Medium Density Residential to CMX – Commercial Mixed Use for the properties
located at 3408and 3412 France Avenue and 3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue, based on the
findings in the staff report and resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
• Is the proposed amendment consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and guidelines?
• What changed or changing conditions make the passage of this amendment necessary?
• What is the expected effect of the proposed amendment?
• What other circumstances justify the amendment?
BACKGROUND:
Scott Bader of Bader Development requests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation of five lots from RM – Medium Density Residential to CMX Commercial Mixed Use.
This application relates to the applicant’s proposal to redevelop the Al’s Bar and Anderson Cleaners
sites at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.
The site is located near the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue at 3408 and
3412 France Avenue South and 3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue. Four of the lots are
currently vacant. Al’s Bar uses 3417 Glenhurst for parking.
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Land Area: 0.85 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
RM – Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use Designation:
CMX – Commercial Mixed Use
Adjacent Land Uses:
North: single-family houses
East: France Av, golf course
South: bar, dry cleaner, Excelsior Bv
West: Glenhurst Av, park, motel
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The developer submitted a concept development plan (see exhibits) to inform the Comprehensive
Plan amendment process and support the application. The plan proposes a five-story building
consisting of 15,000 square feet of first floor commercial, 133 apartment units, a 177-stall
underground garage, 96-stall surface parking lot, and three on-street parking stalls. The parking is
primarily located underground and behind the building.
The concept building design and site layout features a corner plaza with outdoor seating, art and
landscaping that provides a strong presence and gateway into St. Louis Park and connections to the
France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. Commercial storefronts face the plaza, but also have
entrances convenient to the surface parking behind the building. The plan shows an outdoor
recreation area overlooking Bass Lake Park and a new trail access to the park. The site has convenient
access to George Haun Trail, a looped trail around Bass Lake, and is only a quarter mile from the
Southwest LRT Regional Trail.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST:
The subject properties are designated for Medium Density Residential development in the current
Comprehensive Plan land use map. The properties are adjacent to, and in common ownership with,
the Al’s Bar site. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates redevelopment of the site in conjunction with
the adjacent commercial properties. A portion of the proposed five-story building straddles the
guided land use and zoning district boundaries, including the commercial space which may include
retail or restaurant uses. The current guided land use (RM) and zoning (R-4) categories would not
allow five-stories or commercial uses. The applicant requests a change to the CMX - Commercial
Mixed Use designation to accommodate the concept plan.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan includes overall land use, design, and neighborhood planning goals and
policies. This site is specifically noted in the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan. Development guidelines have been prepared for the site with input from neighborhood
representatives.
RM – Medium Density Residential
The current Medium Density Residential designation allows for housing densities of up to 30 units
per acre and allows for a variety of housing types including single family detached, duplexes,
townhomes, and two- and three-story apartment buildings. Corresponding zoning categories for this
land use designation are R-3, which allows densities of up to 11 units per acre, and R-4, which
allows densities up to 30 units per acre.
CMC – Commercial Mixed Use
The proposed Commercial Mixed Use designation currently applies to only a few sites in the City,
including Park Commons (Excelsior & Grand), the Wooddale Drive/36th Street area (proposed light
rail transit station site, Wooddale Pointe and Hoigaard Village), and the Al’s Bar/Anderson Cleaners
site. The goal of the Commercial Mixed Use category is to create pedestrian-scale mixed use
buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential
or office uses on subsequent floors.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Neighborhood Plan
The Minikahda Oaks neighborhood plan discusses development of the subject site. It calls for
“redevelopment of the commercial corner as mixed use including small scale retail and office use,
with primarily residential uses on the north side. The transition from a commercial front to the
single-family area shall be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, and vehicle access. New
development shall follow urban design goals set in Chapter R [Livable Communities] of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.”1
France Avenue and Excelsior Development Guidelines
In response to a proposed development on the Al’s Bar/Anderson Cleaners site in 2004, the City
worked with a group of neighborhood representatives and SRF Consulting Group to identify issues
of concern and prepare development guidelines for the site. The guidelines provide additional
criteria for evaluating development proposals, but are not legally mandated requirements to obtain
development approvals. The guidelines depict preferred conditions and represent the best-case
conditions for new development. As such, the guidelines are the foundation of dialogue with
development interests and influence development on the affected parcels. The applicants designed
the proposed project with the development guidelines in mind.
Neighborhood Issues
Issues of interest to the neighborhood specific to this application and identified in neighborhood
meetings and public hearing include: 1) traffic into the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood, 2) vehicle
access to the site, 3) noise, 4) adequate parking to serve the development and avoid parking in the
neighborhood, 5) having a “transition” from commercial to residential (i.e. density, buffer, building
height), and 6) high quality development and aesthetics. These issues should be considered when
changing the land use designation, and reviewed in more detail with the site development plan
during the planned unit development review process.
Another issue neighbors raised was their desire for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be tied
to this development proposal. There was concern that approving the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would open the door to larger and more intense developments in the future, if the
project did not proceed.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and guidelines.
Changing the land use designation of the subject property facilitates coordinated redevelopment of
two aging commercial buildings and accompanying parking lots with a “gateway” building and
plaza, transit oriented site design, and improved vehicle access and storm water management that
satisfies many of Livable Communities, Commercial Development, and Housing goals in the
Comprehensive Plan for the City and this site. These include:
Livable Communities Goals
Foster a community identity which emphasizes Livable Communities principles, including
mixed use, pedestrian and transit oriented, high density, human scale development
1 As quoted in the Comprehensive Plan, St. Louis Park, 2000.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Provide safe, interesting, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle trails that connect neighborhoods to
services and amenities including Park Commons
Facilitate building locations and design which emphasize a relationship with the public realm
Support design which emphasis architecture, art, and pedestrian and transit connections
Promote building locations and design which emphasizes a relationship with the public realm
and emphasizes architecture, art, and pedestrian and trail connections
Encourage public displays of art (the corner plaza is expected to include a vertical art element)
Commercial Development Goals
Promote aesthetically and functionally positive images for public and private property in
commercial areas through proper design of landscaping, parking, architecture, street furniture,
and signage
Enhance commercial areas’ compatibility with residential areas
Insure that commercial developments are adequately served with public transit facilities
Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial development using design,
performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering
Encourage convenient pedestrian access to and within the commercial areas from neighborhoods
and transit stops
Housing Goals
Promote and facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse current and
future needs
Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals
Promote higher density housing near transit corridors
Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts
There are changed conditions that warrant the passage of this amendment. The Park Commons area
has become the city center and Excelsior Boulevard the “main street” of St. Louis Park. The
Excelsior and France intersection is a prominent location and an entryway into the City. The
Development Guidelines developed 2005 for this site state that redevelopment of the commercial
corner shall be mixed use and include small scale retail, office and residential uses.
The proposed amendment could have several effects. The amendment allows for coordinated
redevelopment of nine parcels, which creates opportunities to reduce access points and improve
storm water management. It helps facilitate improvements to the eastern gateway to St. Louis Park
by enlivening the corner with active storefronts, corner plaza, streetscape, art and landscaping framed
by a transit-oriented and pedestrian-scale building. The site and building design can help avoid
potential negative impacts identified by the neighborhood.
Some of the site design techniques shown in the concept plan include setting the building back away
from neighboring houses, placing the building between activity along Excelsior Boulevard and the
single family residential uses, screening the parking lot, “stepping back” upper floors along the street,
and providing underground parking for residents and surface parking for employees, customers and
visitors.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
There are other circumstances that justify the amendment. The subject properties are suitable for
commercial mixed use development, based the close proximity and access to Excelsior Boulevard (a
minor arterial), frequently operating buses, parks, trails and other amenities and services.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions may apply.
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
o Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout
the community.
• St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community
aesthetics.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
There are no budget implications of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in and of itself.
PROCESS:
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is the first of three rounds of applications that will be
necessary to approve the proposed project.
The City of St. Louis Park Zoning Code states, “If a requested comprehensive plan amendment
involves a land use or density change on a particular parcel of land, no request for a conditional use
permit, planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall be accepted for processing
until action on the comprehensive plan amendment has been completed.” Therefore, the applicant
is applying, first, for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3, 2008, and number of citizens
attended. The unofficial minutes of the meeting are attached for City Council review. The
Planning Commission discussion included a desire to tie the amendment to this project proposal,
but Commissioners also recognized the decision must stand on it own merits. The issue seemed to
revolve around the timing of the Comprehensive Plan and some discomfort that more of the project
details were not known. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
application on a 4-1 vote. As City Council considers the application, it must have a supermajority
(two-thirds majority) in support of the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. A resolution
to approve the amendment must be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval.
After City Council action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the developer would apply for
rezoning, preliminary plat, and planned unit development. All three of the applications require
public hearings before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. The rezoning also
requires a second reading of the City Council and a supermajority to adopt the zoning map
amendment. The City anticipates a tax increment financing request will accompany this
development project. That request would require the Planning Commission’s review and
recommendation, and approval of the Economic Development Authority and City Council.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
The developer would then submit a third round of applications, including final plat and final
planned unit development. These applications are reviewed by Planning Commission and City
Council, but do not technically include public hearings.
Attachments: Resolution and Summary for Publication
Excerpt of the Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Concept plan and project images
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
A 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
3408, 3412 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
3409, 3413, 3417 GLENHURST 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 inconsistent 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 September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and staff of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on September 3, 2008, based on
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests
of citizens and public agencies, and the following findings:
1. The subject properties are suitable to commercial mixed use development, based its close
proximity and access to Excelsior Boulevard (a minor arterial), frequently operating transit service,
parks, trails and other services.
2. Changing the land use designation of the subject properties facilitates coordinated
redevelopment of two aging commercial buildings and accompanying parking lots with a “gateway”
building and plaza, transit oriented site design, and improved traffic access and storm water
management that satisfies many Comprehensive Plan goals for the City and this site.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 08-27-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 08-27-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 RM – Medium
Density Residential to CMX – Commercial Mixed Use.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2008
Contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 11
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
A 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
3408, 3412 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
3409, 3413, 3417 GLENHURST AVENUE SOUTH
This resolution states that the land use designation of 3408, 3412 France Avenue South and 3409,
3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South will be changed from RM – Medium Density Residential to
CMX – Commercial Mixed Use.
Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2008
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: September 25, 2008
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 12
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 3, 2008--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison
Robert Kramer, Richard Person
Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Michael Silver
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
Nancy Sells
B. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Location: 3408, 3412 France Avenue
3409, 3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue
Applicant: Bader Development
Case No.: 08-27-CP
Senior Planner Sean Walther presented the staff report. He stated that the application is submitted
in connection with a proposed redevelopment of several of the properties including the Al’s Bar and
Anderson Cleaners sites at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. He said the
applicant has had neighborhood meetings with the Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista
neighborhoods adjacent to the site. He explained the review process of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and future applications for rezoning, preliminary plat combining the nine parcels into
one, and preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD). The final step in the process would be
the final plat and final PUD application. In addition to the development review processes, there
is likely to be a request for public financing of the project, which has its own public hearing.
Mr. Walther discussed the concept plan at this time in order to inform the Comprehensive Plan
process and to demonstrate that it is sound and warrants going forward. He reviewed the concept
development plan. The plan proposes a 5-story building consisting of 5,000 square feet of first
floor commercial, 133 apartment units, a 182-stall underground garage and 98 surface parking stalls.
Parking is located underground and behind the building. Mr. Walther spoke about the
Development Guidelines for the site which were developed in 2005 with input from neighborhood
representatives.
The applicant, Scott Bader of Bader Development, introduced his team and provided background
information on his company.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 13
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Dean Duvolis, architect, gave an overview of the project.
Damon Farber, landscape architect, spoke about the importance of the site as a gateway. He spoke
about the importance of respecting the neighborhood and developing an inviting sense of place. He
spoke about connectivity to the park system and the extensive landscape screen at the parking lot
edge.
Mr. Duvolis briefly presented shadow studies. He spoke about design elements from the
Development Guidelines.
Chair Robertson complimented the presentation and design process. He added that much of the
presentation is irrelevant however to the request for a Comprehensive Plan change. He asked how
the five lots become part of the development.
Mr. Walther responded that the applicant’s description of the proposed project helps inform goals
for an aesthetic, pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented project.
In response to Chair Robertson’s question about what would be allowed under the current Comp
Plan guide, Mr. Walther said the apartment use would be allowed and an office may also be allowed
on the first floor. The difference however is that the proposal is for a 5-story building and the R-4
District usually limits it to a 3-story building or 40 feet. There are some guidelines for setbacks that
the proposed building would meet. The building would be located over two land uses as designated
in the Comprehensive Plan. The five parcels are in common ownership with the Al’s Bar property.
The Development Guidelines did anticipate and promote a coordinated development. Mr. Walther
said this is the most consistent project that has been seen for this site.
Chair Robertson said he also was asking about impact on surrounding area and massing of buildings.
He added that the common ownership was a major factor in the re-guiding. He commented that
the change in land use guide should stand on its own.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about issues occurring if the re-guiding is approved but the
development doesn’t occur.
Mr. Walther spoke about discretion and City controls that exist in rezoning, the PUD process, and
TIF application process.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that typically a rezoning is brought
forward with the PUD so the details of the project elements are brought forward at the same time as
the rezoning.
Mr. Walther said he could talk very generally but the potential height would be 40 feet or 3 stories
and the general setback would be 15 feet. The proposed building is 60 feet tall and approximately
45 feet from the property line.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 14
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Commissioner Carper asked what size building could be built in the mixed-use portion of the lot
currently.
Mr. Walther responded no setback is required for mixed-use district and no particular height
limitation.
Ms. McMonigal noted that the mixed-use zoning district does require a PUD public hearing and
approval to determine the exact site elements.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison added that the review also takes into consideration the Design
Guidelines.
Commissioner Person asked if the density proposed is allowed under R-4 regulations.
Mr. Walther answered the way they calculated it during the Development Guidelines process was
that up to 132 units could be developed with the 9 parcels. The current proposal is for 133 units.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 3550 France, lives in the first single family house on France Ave. south of Excelsior
Blvd. He has lived at that address since 1954. He spoke about Minnesota case law which holds
that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed you have to: 1) explain why the original plan was in
error; or 2) show a change in circumstances which make it absolutely necessary and imperative to
change the plan in order to make any use of the property.
Mr. Miller spoke about the 2004 proposal for a 10-story building. He spoke about question No. 8
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan application: “What changed or changing conditions make passage
of this amendment necessary?” which refers to the Minnesota case law. The developer’s answer
was: Excelsior Blvd. corridor plan, Excelsior & Grand development, Excelsior Blvd. road
enhancement. Toll Brothers Company abandoned that plan. He said meetings followed and Ms.
McMonigal proposed a six- month study group of property owners, neighborhood representatives,
staff and consultant which resulted in the Design Guidelines as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. He said subsequently there was an application for a 14-story building. He
read from the neighborhood flyer announcing a City Council meeting regarding that application.
The developers told the Council a 5-story building would not pencil out. That plan didn’t proceed
either.
Mr. Miller said he wanted to speak about the current proposal for the whole corner to be
Commercial Mixed Use. He discussed the applicant’s answer to question No. 8: The purpose of
this application is to develop a project that is consistent with a specific Development Guidelines for
the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. Mr. Miller said he had asked Mr. Walther why it is necessary
to change the zoning on those 5 lots if the applicant desires to follow the guidelines. Mr. Miller
said the effect of the project will be a commercial corner with no buffer zone for the single family
residences bordering those lots. He commented that situation doesn’t exist even at Excelsior &
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 15
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Grand. He said the guidelines are being abandoned and the developer can put in anything at that
site that it wants. The neighborhood will not have a thing to say about it. Mr. Miller said the
Commission doesn’t even have a plan to examine at this point. He said at one of the recent
neighborhood meetings with few people in attendance one picture was shown. It had five stories
and he told them the actual guidelines say if it has to be five stories, then a design with four and five
stories looks better aesthetically. He went on to say that approving the Comp Plan will take away
the residents right to object. It will change the neighborhood and home values will be reduced. He
concluded by saying the Design Guidelines took a lot of effort and they can be thrown away if the
Comprehensive Plan is changed.
Brian Johnson, 3345 Glenhurst, spoke about the review process and schedule. He stated he believes
it would be a mistake for the Commission to make a hurried recommendation to the City Council.
The City’s website as of September 2 listed this meeting as canceled. He objected to the timing
and notice of the meeting just before the last days of summer and the Labor Day weekend when
board members and neighborhood members have been away on vacation preventing a decent
exchange of information and discussion regarding the impacts of the proposed change. He said he
is concerned that an insufficient number of his neighbors will be able to express their views before a
formal recommendation is made to the City Council. He said he believes the Commission should
hear from as many neighbors as possible before making a decision which will fundamentally change
the character of the neighborhood. He went on to say the staff report contains virtually no analysis
for the Council to make an informed decision as to whether the proposed development meets stated
criteria for the Comprehensive Plan. He said only in a few sentences on page five does the report
conclude that the proposed development is suitable for commercial mixed use development and also
that it satisfies many of the Comprehensive Plan goals for the City and this site.
Mr. Johnson stated he believed City staff at a minimum need to go into more specific detail as to
why they have reached these conclusions. He added that the report should at least outline some of
the potential negative impacts to the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood and how these negative impacts
might run counter to the goals and specific language of the Comprehensive Plan. He gave an
example that the report itself notes that the Comp Plan requires the transition from a commercial
front to a single family area shall be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics and vehicle access.
He said staff has given the neighborhood assurances that this is development specific and that no
changes would be made to the Comprehensive Plan if this development does not move forward. He
said in talking to his neighbors he believes it is fairly clear that they do not favor changing the Comp
Plan in the abstract. Any recommendation by the Commission should be clear on this point. He
said on behalf of himself and other board members he requests a continuance of the hearing to a
future meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chair Robertson asked Ms. McMonigal to speak about the amendment being development specific.
Ms. McMonigal remarked that the Comp Plan amendment is submitted as part of the proposed
development. It is set up in the ordinance to be separated from the development and rezoning
review so that it can be looked at on its own. The amendment is required to go forward before there
is an application for the other required items. The developer requested this amendment. If the
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 16
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
development does not go ahead, there are options to rescind the amendment and change it back.
However, it is set up to stand on its own. It does need to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council
as well which adds some time to the process. She commented that it is kind of complicated and
somewhat different from most cities. Most cities typically bring the Comprehensive Plan
amendment together with the other applications. The City is evaluating for the future whether or
not Comp Plan amendments should be presented separately.
Chair Robertson spoke about Mr. Miller’s remarks and the reasons for change and the ability for the
amendment to stand on its own. He said it has to make sense all on its own.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison spoke about the need for evaluation of the Comp Plan process.
She said statements should be added for the City Council that this should be rescinded if the project
does not go forward.
Elizabeth White, 4118 Randall, said she is concerned about not having a buffer between the
development and their small neighborhood. She suggested using the site as it exists, not
maximizing, doing a little less than what is proposed would be better in the long run. She said
change happens, but this could be done in a better way, instead of maximizing let’s size down. Let’s
not make it 5 stories. The guidelines don’t say 5 stories is ideal. The guidelines suggest 3 stories.
Let’s stick to 3 stories and not 5 stories. Ms. White stated that the Council seems to be tired of
hearing proposals and seems to be tired to talk over and over about this. The City chose to do this
and should go on doing this and should not be tired of doing this. Just because the Council is tired
of listening to different proposals doesn’t make her feel good. What seems good to a tired Council
is not necessarily the best for their neighborhood. This is her biggest concern and she would like
that to be kept in mind.
Wells Anderson, 3336 Glenhurst commented that at one of the developer and neighborhood
meetings he attended participants had a very positive feeling about this proposal in comparison to
past proposals. He thought the team was excellent and explained their proposal well. He said the
neighborhood needs some more time to look at this proposed zoning change. They want more
opportunity to look into it and be heard and to look at alternatives to what has been a proposal for a
complete commercial zoning of the land.
Ms. McMonigal noted that this is not a proposal for zoning change. It is a proposal for a land use
change and there is an additional process for the zoning change in the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) so there will be additional time for reviewing. Staff have not looked at or received the
specifics of the building and site plan proposal. There is time for the City staff and the
neighborhood to do that.
Chair Robertson asked about buffers and any mixed-use abutting single family residential in the
City.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 17
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Mr. Walther spoke about Excelsior and Grand where there are abutting districts surrounding.
Hoigaard Village project has a mixed use classification, as does Wooddale Pointe project. In those
cases there is not abutting single family residential uses. The discussion in the Comprehensive Plan
about a buffer and about design and scale and intensity are all necessary but a buffer zoning is not
specifically required; it is done with the design of the site.
Chair Robertson asked how we get assurances of the Design Guidelines through the Comprehensive
Plan process.
Paula Merrigan, architect, remarked the way the zoning is currently set up the residential district and
within that residential district the setback requirements are determined by the distance between the
lots, which happens to be 60 feet. Going forward with the Comp Plan amendment allows us to put
a conversation on the table about the concerns people are raising and gives the City plenty of
opportunity to look at zoning, height, setback and building particulars. But if one isn’t even able to
begin a discussion about the kind of project that might be brought to the gateway of St. Louis Park,
we can’t proceed. We need to be able to bring it to the table to have a fruitful conversation that
will go on over the next three months, within the City process.
Alberto Bertomeu, 4419 Excelsior Blvd., stated he owns two commercial buildings and businesses in
the area being discussed. He spoke about what it means to try to make something happen. The
team has put forward a very attractive proposal that needs more discussion. He said the process has
just started yet there seems to be so much tension in the room about the project. He said as a
business owner in the community he feels very privileged that someone is willing to put money,
invest risk, create jobs in the community. The Comp Plan process is a chance to explore
opportunities and there will be more hearings and details coming up that will address the concerns
raised. An owner and investor needs to start somewhere. He said the proposal is very close to
what the Design Guidelines describe in terms of height and setbacks. He said the Excelsior &
Grand project is a phenomenal success which has increased real estate values. He suggested letting
the process unfold.
Kristen Turcotte, 4030 Randall, said what people are trying to say is, you are coming into my
neighborhood. She said she doesn’t mind development on the outside of Excelsior & France, but
objects to taking the other lots and having people drive further into the neighborhood. She said she
has two little kids and doesn’t want to see more traffic coming down France Ave. She asked if there
is an alternative to the parking, which is why the extra lots are needed.
Mary Beaudin, 4112 Randall, said she is glad the developer doesn’t want to build 14 stories. She
stated the truth is, the neighbors don’t care if there is a gateway. She said they love the
neighborhood the way it is. They know someone is coming in. They don’t have anything against Al
for selling his property. They like Al and wish he would keep his bar there. She said he has been a
good neighbor and deserves a good profit on his property. When someone wants to change the land
use, it is very difficult to change it back. She asked why didn’t they know they had to do this
before. She stated it makes the neighborhood suspicious when all of the sudden this is coming up
now and it feels like only the beginning. She asked what else will be put there and can they trust the
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 18
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
process. They like it the way it is. They don’t want a lot more people coming through our
neighborhood and they don’t want more traffic. The buffer zones are important. She said the
neighborhood thinks its residents have the right to live in a neighborhood, not a commercial zone.
Nancy Rose, 3402 Huntington, said in 1999 there was a proposal and the same five lots that had
been single family zoning became medium density, and then nothing was built there. There was no
reverting back to the single family designation. She said they have great concerns that this is another
episode of zoning creep which is moving commercial closer and closer to our homes. As
neighborhood board members they have a responsibility to convey the intents of the neighborhood
to the Planning Commission and they need to help the neighborhood understand terminology. She
said they would like to facilitate a session and be able to come back to the Commission with a good
statement of what the neighborhood’s attitudes and reasons are. She would like to second Brian
Johnson’s request for an extension of the hearing.
Doug White, 4118 Randall, spoke about a common goal. The Development Guidelines call for the
hotel property to be included in the development. This would give more access, including access
from the west on Excelsior Blvd., into the buildings. The current proposal would route all traffic
through France Ave. which is their tiny neighborhood. He said Mr. Bader would like to purchase
the hotel, the Development Guidelines call for that inclusion, it would provide more traffic flow, the
neighborhood wants it, which would prevent the residential lots from becoming commercial mixed
use, thereby putting our neighbors right next to the parking garage where 200 people are coming in
and out every day. He would encourage the City to do what they can to help Mr. Bader obtain
the hotel property to prevent these issues cramming all the traffic into France Ave. He spoke about
the left turn at France and Excelsior from the west He spoke about how the hotel property value
will skyrocket after the development is built and then what will we do? By that time all of the access
points will be on France Ave. He spoke about the congested left turn lane coming from the west
to Excelsior and France that can only hold four cars. In reference to question No. 8 on the
application as to why is the Comp Plan needed, he said it is because Mr. Bader can’t obtain the hotel
property which he wants. The neighborhood and the City want him to purchase the hotel.
Chair Robertson acknowledged receipt of e-mail correspondence from Christopher Carlisle dated
September 3, 2008, which reflected a number of the concerns expressed by residents at the public
hearing. [See end of this section.]
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper asked for clarification on the Comprehensive Plan regarding height
limitations, in particular at this end of the community.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 19
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Ms. McMonigal said the Comp Plan isn’t the document used specifically for height. That falls
under the Zoning Ordinance. The Comp Plan is about general land use. Zoning is applied which
is consistent to the general land use. Zoning has specific standards including height and setbacks
that help determine where a building can be placed on a site. She said the Development Guidelines
developed for this area, which are referred to in the Comp Plan, discuss height suggesting 3 or 4
stories and in some cases some portions could be 5 stories. But the Comp Plan itself doesn’t
specifically talk about height. That would come in the next step with rezoning and PUD.
Commissioner Carper asked how the Comp Plan missed the five lots for inclusion in the
development.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was part of many of the different meetings regarding the
parcel over the years. She spoke about the Comp Plan being a vision of what is anticipated being
developed in a particular area. Ideas change over the years. Her understanding over the years was
that those five lots would be changed and amended as part of any serious development. This isn’t
the first time this has come out, though it may be the first time it has come to the Planning
Commission as a proposal for that area.
Commissioner Person asked if the zoning changed on the five parcels because of a previous
development proposal.
Chair Robertson and Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the zoning changed from single family
to R-4 around 1999.
Chair Robertson said the citizen comments are very valid and very good. He said as all the land is
owned by a single entity he wants to neaten things up and bring it under the same Comp Plan use.
He finds the development proposal for the corner to be thoughtful. He believes it is a very good
thing for the City, though he understands some of the neighborhood not caring about a gateway.
But there is a value to a gateway for St. Louis Park. He said he’d be willing to approve the Comp
Plan change but he wants the developer to hear the remarks made and to know that as they come
forward with future applications, the Commission will be looking at what was there, can the
amendment stand on its own, access, creating a true buffer other than a parking lot, and the changes
along Exc. Blvd.
Commissioner Person asked if the building footprint did not encroach into the five lots, could the
lots still be used for parking without a Comp Plan amendment.
Chair Robertson said the Commission can recommend to the City Council that it stays as parking
lot, and ask that the building itself doesn’t encroach that far, which would push the parking a little
bit closer to Excelsior Blvd. creating a true, wider buffer. But that includes details not required at
this time. That ability would come in the future with rezoning and PUD, and the City needs to
follow through with it.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 20
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
Commissioner Kramer said he would like to second Mr. Bertomeu’s comments that we should
enable the development to go to the next step. He said he would rather see the opportunity for an
improvement to a plan than to kill the plan. He would be in favor of making an amendment to the
Comp Plan for the time being, subject to this specific development, and not in perpetuity.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she agreed with Commissioner Kramer. She is in favor of
the amendment as there will be more review with the next applications of rezoning and PUD along
with the Development Guidelines.
In answer to a question regarding how Council is informed of the Planning Commissioner
recommendation, Ms. McMonigal said a tape of the meeting is available, minutes are provided,
comments of the public and the Commission are reported in the staff report to the Council, as well
as a staff recommendation. Reports are available the Friday prior to Council meetings.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from RM – Medium Density Residential to CMX – Commercial Mixed Use for the
properties located at 3408 and 3412 France Avenue and 3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-1
(Person opposed).
Written correspondence from Chris Carlisle, 3321 Huntington Ave S:
My name is Chris Carlisle and I am a resident of the Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood and a new
member of the Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood Association Board. Unfortunately I am not going to
be able to attend the meeting of the St. Louis Park Planning Commission tomorrow night (the
"Commission Meeting"). Nancy Sells in the City's office suggested that I contact you directly with
my comments with respect to the Commission Meeting and the attached report on the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (the "Report"). While I do not speak for my neighbors I believe
that many of the concerns set forth in this email are shared by others in the neighborhood.
1. Hurried Recommendation to the City Council.
My understanding is that the Planning Commission can make a formal recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan based solely on the Commission
Meeting and the Report. The Report itself suggests that the City Council could make a decision on
the change to the Comprehensive Plan as early as its meeting on September 17th. I believe it would
be a serious mistake for the Commission to make a hurried recommendation to the City Council for
a couple of reasons.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 21
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
First, there has been confusion as to the status of the Commission Meeting. The City's website as
recently as today stated that the Commission Meeting had been cancelled. I am concerned that an
insufficient number of my neighbors will be able to express their views on this important decision
before a formal recommendation is made to the City Council. I believe the Commission should
hear from as many neighbors as possible before making a decision that will fundamentally change
the character of our neighborhood.
More importantly, the Report contains virtually no analysis for the City Council to make an
informed decision as to whether the proposed development meets the stated criteria for the
Comprehensive Plan. In two perfunctory sentences on page 5, the Report concludes that the
proposed development (a) "is suitable for commercial mixed use development," and (b) "satisfies
many of [the] Comprehensive Plan goals for the City and this site."
I believe that in order to allow the Commission to make an informed decision, the City Staff at
minimum needs to go into more specific detail as to why they have reached these conclusions.
Further, I believe that the Report should at least outline some of the potential negative impacts to
the Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood and how those negative impacts might run counter to
the goals and specific language of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Report itself notes that
the Comprehensive Plan requires,"[t]he transition from a commercial front to the single-family area
shall be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics and vehicle assess." While I recognize that there
is a subjective element to applying these requirements to a specific project and parcel, I think it is a
glaring omission for there to be no acknowledgement of the potential negative impacts to the
existing neighbors when the proposed development abuts directly with existing single-family homes
and a low-density neighborhood. To me and I believe others in the neighborhood, the Report reads
like a marketing piece for the developers and does not provide the Commission with enough
balanced information to make an informed decision. I find it both instructive and disappointing
that the Report contains only 4 and 1/2 pages created by City Staff, while 10 pages of artist
renditions and architectural drawings supplied by the developer are attached as exhibits.
The Planning Commission plays a vital advisory role to the City Council. If a hurried
recommendation is made based on the Report as drafted and one single meeting with insufficient
input from the Minikahda Oaks neighbors, I believe the Commission will be doing a disservice to
the City Council, the City and the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood.
2. Opposition to the Proposed Development.
Notwithstanding whether a decision is made by the Commission to recommend the proposed
change to the City Council at tomorrow night's meeting, I am strongly opposed to the merits of the
proposed development for a couple of reasons.
First and foremost, I believe that a five-story, 134 apartment units and 275 parking stall complex on
this small series of lots runs counter to (to use the language proscribed by the Comprehensive Plan,
not "mindful" of) the "scale and density" of our neighborhood and the surrounding area -- namely
single family homes in a low-density community. The adjacent parcels are zoned the way they are
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 22
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
for a reason -- they directly abut single family homes and a 70 home low-density neighborhood.
The current zoning of medium density residential is totally appropriate and mindful of scale and
density in light of the property's direct proximity to a low-density single family community.
Contrary to the conclusions of the Report, I believe the proposed change runs completely counter to
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Second, if a large scale rental or condominium project is allowed to move forward by the City, I
believe that it is absolutely critical that the adjacent motel property be included in the proposal. The
first benefit to this is obvious -- if that property is included it could very well reduce the height and
units necessary to make the project economically feasible. But an equally important consideration is
to look to the long-term development of Excelsior Boulevard. Due to the size of the lot, I believe it
will prove very difficult to attract an economically feasible redevelopment of the motel site that is not
connected to a development of Al's and Anderson's development. To state the obvious, the Motel
site has become an eye-sore and a potential problem area for crime in the City. To leave this site
undeveloped in connection with a redevelopment with the whole corner is to risk leaving the Motel
underutilized for years to come.
I understand and appreciate the owners of Al's and Anderson's want to realize the full economic
value of their real estate in a sale. But whether they want to hear this or not, their properties are
appropriately zoned and this development does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan. To amend the Comprehensive Plan for this development would not only run counter to the
tenets of the Comprehensive Plan, it would increase the value of these sites at the direct economic
and livability expense of the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood and to a lesser extent the Minikahda
Vista neighborhood.
3. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan Change to Future Developments.
Several members of the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood board have spoken to City Staff and John
Basill about whether this change to the Comprehensive Plan, if approved, would be specific to this
development or would, if approved by the City Council, be approved for future developments as
well. We have been given assurances that it is development-specific and that no changes would be
made to the Comprehensive Plan if this development does not move forward. While it seems to be
implied by the Report that this is the case, I think it is very important to our neighborhood that we
understand that this proposed change is development specific. From talking to my neighbors I
believe it is fairly clear that we do not favor changing the plan in the abstract. I believe that any
recommendation by the Commission should be clear on this point.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 23
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment
4. Conclusion.
For the reasons set forth above, I believe that the Commission should hold at least one additional
meeting open to the public before it makes its recommendation to the City Council. I am opposed
to the proposed development in its current form and I believe many of my Minikahda neighbors are
too. And finally, it is very important to my neighborhood that a decision to alter the
Comprehensive Plan be development specific, with no changes to be made if the current
development project does not move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 24
THE ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIORSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaGateway SketchSeptember 3, 200808.0089.0Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 25
THE ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIORSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaExcelsior SketchSeptember 3, 200808.0089.0Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 26
THE ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIORSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaPark Side SketchSeptember 3, 200808.0089.0Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 27
THE ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIORSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaStreetscape SketchSeptember 3, 200808.0089.0Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 28
THE ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIORSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaDevelopment GuidelinesSeptember 3, 200808.0089.0Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Al’s Bar Redevelopment Page 29
Meeting Date: September 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
MN DOT staff will be in attendance to present and discuss the I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning
Study with the City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
In October the City Council may be asked pass a resolution accepting the study and its
recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
The I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study was a multi-agency collaboration that evaluated transit,
land use, infrastructure and telecommuting in the I-394 corridor. A foundation for this work was
the understanding that high-cost capacity expansions were not likely to occur in the corridor for 25
to 30 years, despite forecasts of increasing congestion that may threaten efficiency gains achieved
with conversion of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane
operation.
Transportation authorities will use the recommendations identified in this study to guide
investments in corridor facilities and services. Communities adjacent to the corridor may use the
transit supportive land use recommendations. While specific funding for implementation of these
recommendations was not identified prior to the planning process, several compelling transit, land
use and telecommuting recommendations are currently being advanced for programming.
City staff attended Technical Advisory Group meetings for the planning study in 2007-2008. MN
DOT used these meetings to update the group on the study progress, initial findings, initial
recommendations and provided opportunities for questions and comments during the process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to be a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Staff Comments To MnDOT
Presentation slides provided by MnDOT
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
City Staff Comments to MnDOT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study. The
City of St. Louis Park staff reviewed the document and we have the following comments.
1. Please review the attached recommendations from a recent CORSIM study prepared at the
request of MnDOT as part of the AUAR process for the West End Redevelopment project.
SRF Consulting Group prepared the recommendations for both studies, and should have
coordinated the recommendations to some degree. We ask that MnDOT review and
confirm that recommendations from both studies are consistent and complementary.
2. The transit recommendations include signal preemption by Metro Transit buses along
Wayzata Boulevard. Many of the intersections along the I-394 corridor, and extending
north and south from I-394, are controlled by MnDOT in order to coordinate and optimize
the timing of the signals. It is not clear if MnDOT is communicating this information
internally. Has the study adequately accounted for the effect of this recommendation may
have on traffic and optimization efforts? Of note, City of St. Louis Park is in process of
approving a cooperative agreement with MnDOT that provides for City construction, and
MnDOT long-term maintenance and operation of the signals on Park Place Boulevard south
of 1-394.
3. The transit improvements plan recommends a new transit-only underpass of Park Place
Boulevard north of Wayzata Boulevard. This plan seems to be an important element to the
plan, but also relatively expensive. There are several questions and comments regarding this
recommendation.
a. The expense of tunneling under Park Place Boulevard may be better justified if it
served all traffic, instead of transit-only.
b. The proposed underpass impacts parking and access to existing sites. These
properties were significantly impacted by the construction of I-394. The loss of
parking may be offset if all traffic can use the underpass and direct access to the new
frontage road is provided/maintained.
c. Maintaining access to in this quadrant of the City to/from I-394 via Park Place
Boulevard throughout construction of an underpass/tunnel would be essential.
d. The proposed roadway would essentially eliminate the existing park and ride on the
northeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and Wayzata Boulevard. This site is
relatively small, but it is used by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park residents. A
suitable replacement or alternative should be identified, perhaps coordinated with the
bus circulator system recommended to accompany the new bus route.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
e. Has there been any review of the door-to-door service improvements (time) for riders
of this corridor? The transit improvements proposed will benefit riders from further
out in the system, but may not improve travel times when considering the transfers
and time on the circulator buses for riders from/to important employment
destinations along the corridor, especially in Golden Valley.
4. The land use recommendations in the report offer creative ideas for future development in
the corridor. City of St. Louis Park does not necessarily support all the recommendations.
Many of the proposed redevelopment projects may not be feasible until significant
improvements to transit service and ridership are realized due to potential impacts on the
road systems. However, we appreciate the opportunity to refer to these ideas during the
City’s comprehensive and neighborhood planning processes.
5. The City of St. Louis Park has placed this item on the City Council’s September 8, 2008
Study Session agenda. This will be a good opportunity to receive City Officials’ questions
and comments regarding the study.
6. It is unlikely the City of St. Louis Park City Council would “endorse” the study. It is more
likely it would “accept” the study and provide formal comments.
1
I-394 MnPASS Enhancements:
A Vision for the Future
Presentation to
St. Louis Park City Council
September 15, 2008
Kenneth R. Buckeye, AICP
Minnesota Department of Transportation
I-394 MnPASS Phase II Goals
•Identify MnPASS infrastructure
enhancements to improve corridor
performance.
•Identify short and long-term transit,
land-use and operational strategies
which optimize the level of service in the
corridor for all users.
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 5
2
MnPASS Phase II Objectives
•Revisit original vision for MnPASS Plan
•Promote Transit / HOV advantages
•Link facility enhancements with urban design and
land-use
•Engage communities in planning, design and
implementation
•Coordinate with community comprehensive plan
updates
•Transfer learning to other projects
Planning Study Elements
•Infrastructure: MnPASS Facility Concepts
and Preliminary Design
•Transit Advantages
•Land-use and Urban Design
•Telecommuting
•Outreach and Education
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 6
3
Infrastructure Recommendations
•Ultimate Condition Scenario A –Moveable
Barrier Alternative
•Two eastbound lanes in AM peak
•Two westbound lanes in PM peak
•One eastbound lane in PM peak
•Reconstruct existing eastbound GP lanes
at Highway 100
•Add thru lane and new entrance to reversible
section
•Reconstruct HOV ramp from NB 100
•Conduct operations analysis of HOV/HOT
ramp operation at Highway 100
•Evaluate third toll zone at I-94
•Estimated Cost: $31.0-$38.5 million
Reversible Section - (Moveable barrier)
• AM peak-period
– Two lanes eastbound
– Moveable barrier
placed adjacent to
south J-barrier
• PM peak-period
– Two lanes westbound
– One lane eastbound
PM Peak-Period Configuration
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 7
4
Transit Recommendations
• Establish direct and frequent limited stop
all day service
• Provide additional heated bus shelters
• Pedestrian bridge at Hopkins Crossroads
• Signal priority at Louisiana Avenue
• Grade separated transitway at
Xenia/Park Place
• Parking and transit center at Ridgedale
• Neighborhood feeder bus
Service Opportunities
Park Place / Xenia
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 8
5
Cost Estimates
Metro TransitReallocation of
Existing Service
Implement Service on
South Frontage Road
Metro TransitReallocation of
Existing Service
Neighborhood Feeder Bus
Service
Minnetonka, Metro Transit
& Ridgedale Management
$ 10,000,000500 Parking Spaces and
Transit Station at Ridgedale
MnDOT & St. Louis Park$ 6,100,000
Grade Separated Roadway
under
Park Place / Xenia
Depends on Signal
Jurisdiction (Hennepin
County, Minnetonka,
Golden Valley or St.
Louis Park)
$ 1,000,000
Traffic Signal Modifications &
Traffic Signal Priority at
Louisiana Avenue
MnDOT$ 850,000Pedestrian Bridge at
Hopkins Crossroads
Metro Transit$ 150,000Nine Heated Bus Shelters
Lead AgencyEstimated CostRecommendation
Implementation
Land Use and Urban Design
Current Conditions
• Highly auto dominated land use patterns exist
throughout the corridor
• Developed land in corridor is underutilized
• Wetlands, soils and runoff are important issues
to be considered
• Locations near transit routes and key crossroads
are candidates for redevelopment
• Plans should take advantage of existing and
proposed trail systems and connections
• Enhanced off-peak transit service may create
new development opportunities
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 9
6
Land Use and Urban Design
Recommendations
• Louisiana Avenue and Park Place/Xenia Study
Area Design
– St. Louis Park
– Golden Valley
• Ridgedale Conceptual Design
– Minnetonka
• Wide range of detailed land use and urban
design concepts
• Intended to identify what is possible/desirable for
these communities and the corridor in keeping
with goals of the project
• Particular desire to identify transit supportive
land uses
• Strong linkage with existing and proposed trail
systems and connections
Louisiana and Park
Place/Xenia Study Area:
Overall Design/Plan
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 10
7
Telecommuting Recommendations
• Build upon telecommuting strategies
being implemented in Minnesota’s Urban
Partnership Agreement
– Results Only Work Environment (ROWE)
– Telework/Telecommuting Promotion
SUMMARY
• Infrastructure
– Mn/DOT leads; Hennepin County supports
• Transit
– Metro Transit leads (underway); Mn/DOT and
communities/county support
• Land use and urban design
– Corridor communities lead (under
advisement)
• Telecommuting
– Mn/DOT leads through UPA, TMOs support
(underway)
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 11
8
Questions and More Information
Visit:http://www.mnpass.org/phase2.html
Or contact:
Kenneth R. Buckeye, AICP
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Ph. (651) 366-3737
kenneth.buckeye@dot.state.mn.us
Meeting of September 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study Page 12