HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/10/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
OCTOBER 6, 2008
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Increasing Use of New and Existing Gathering Places
2. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Expand Network of Sidewalks and Trails
(Box Lunches Provided for Council)
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
7a. Sale Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC
(Anderson Builders)
7b. Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center
LLC
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
3b. City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
3c. Special City Council Minutes September 22, 2008
3d. City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 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
Meeting of October 6, 2008
City Council Agenda
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing on 1st Reading 2009 Fee Schedule Appendix A
Recommended Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting
fees for 2009 and Set Second Reading for October 20, 2008
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
Recommended Action:
Adopt First Reading of Ordinance Relating relating to Towers and Antennas and to set
Second Reading for October 20, 2008
8b. Minor Amendment to West End PUD for Grocery Store
1570 16th Street West
Case No. 08-32-PUD
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End,
subject to conditions in the resolution.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of October 6, 2008
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution appointing student election judges and additional regular election judges
needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 4, 2008
4b. Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase city attorney
services rates by 3.5% starting January 1, 2009
4c. Approve Second Reading to Adopt Ordinance amending Sections 4-81 through 4-89
concerning dogs, approve summary, and authorize publication
4d. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No.
2006-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Improvement Project No. 2006-2000
4e. Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
5925 West 34th Street
4f. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 72-08 - Street Project – Park Place Boulevard –
Project No. 2007-1101
4g. Adopt Resolution approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 93080-R and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement – Street Project – Park
Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-1101
4h. Approve Encroachment Agreement with 4349 Browndale Avenue for use of City right-of-
way for two (2) retaining walls
4i. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 06-08 - Water Project - WTP #8 Filter
Rehabilitation - Project 2006-2000
4j. Adopt Resolution to enter into a lease agreement between the City and TTM Operating
Corporation, Inc. (TTM) for space on the water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue for a
communications antenna
4k. Approve the Third Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Highway 7
Business Center LLC
4l. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 113-07 – Furnish Decorative Street Lighting for
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project – Project No. 2004-0100
4m. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $33,509.48 for furnishing of
decorative street lighting poles and fixtures, banner poles, and luminaries, Project No. 2004-
0400 with Carlo Lachmansingh Sales, Inc.., City Contract No. 113-07
4n. Approve the Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment relating to the Purchase
and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill 3501 LLC
4o. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
4p. Approve for filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
4q. Approve for filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
4r. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update – Gathering Places
Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• Focus Area: Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the direction outlined in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the direction outlined in this report in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
Gathering places serve important community needs – they provide a place for people to build a sense
of community, a place for people to connect, meet, talk, play, relax, think and become involved.
These gathering places can vary from a bench on the corner to coffee shops, diners, convenience or
drug stores, community centers, schools, parks and the like.
WHAT WE’RE DOING:
City staff is participating in several activities:
• Creating an inventory of public and private gathering spaces in the community.
• Asking citizens about the gathering places and activities in the city-wide survey this fall.
• Working with the Community Liaison to identify neighborhood activities and gathering
opportunities.
• Incorporating gathering spaces as an important aspect of community planning:
- Park and recreation planning
- Sidewalk and trails planning
- Transportation connections planning
- Redevelopment planning such as:
Improving 36th Street as a connection and gathering place
Creating public gathering spaces at the West End, Hoigaard Village,
Excelsior & Grand, and Wooddale Pointe
Retaining civic property at Monterey and Beltline
Improving the trail system around the Melrose Institute
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update – Gathering Places
WHAT’S NEXT:
Over the next year, staff foresees exploring the following ideas:
• Complete the public and private spaces inventory and make available.
• Continue to research ideas for increased development and use of gathering spaces.
• Emphasize connections and gathering spaces in park, development/redevelopment,
neighborhood and public works planning.
• Work with Park and Rec and Community Ed to determine opportunities in connecting
gathering spaces with specific or additional programs such as talking groups, book clubs/card
clubs, neighborhood events, etc.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Activities are to advance the vision – St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community through
“increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the
community.”
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2
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:
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update
• Focus Area: Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the recommendations outlined in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the direction staff is going with this Vision item?
WHERE WE HAVE BEEN:
On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted Vision Strategic Directions – 18 Month Guide. Since
adoption of the 18 Month Guide, Vision Team Members have been assigned to and working on
each of the Strategic Directions and related focus areas. As discussed at the Council workshop in
February, staff will be presenting information for Council consideration on each of the Vision focus
areas through October 6, 2008.
The following Strategic Direction and related focus area will be discussed at this meeting:
Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
• Focus area: Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
The action team members for this focus area are: Rick Beane, Scott Brink, Adam Fulton, Mark
Hanson, Meg McMonigal, Mike Rardin, Cindy Walsh and Sean Walther.
In response to the Vision St. Louis Park process, in 2006 staff applied for and received $75,000
funding from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota for preparation of the Active Living; Sidewalks
and Trails Plan. The City hired SRF Consulting, Inc. to assist with the planning effort.
This effort built upon the valuable work of the 2006 Vision St. Louis Park Sidewalks and Tails
Action Team. The public participation process to identify needs and provide recommendations
included a ten person Citizen Advisory Committee, which met five times, a Community Workshop,
a Community Meeting, and review and recommendations from the Planning Commission and
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The plan identified pedestrian and bicycle system gaps
and deficiencies. Staff presented details on the process and draft plan maps to City Council on
October 15, 2007. The Council provided input on the proposed systems maps, and asked several
questions about implementation.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails
The Active Living; Sidewalks and Trails Plan will include recommended goals, policies, projects and
programs for the pedestrian and bicycle system. The accepted plan, in whole or in part, will be
incorporated into the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
WHAT WE ARE DOING:
Planning Studies:
City staff is participating in several companion planning studies.
• Joint study with Golden Valley of potential bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Park
Place-Xenia area. A $35,000 Federal Non-motorized Transportation Program grant
administered by Transit for Livable Communities. St. Louis Park is the lead, and hired
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. to assist with the study.
• Joint study with Minnetonka and Hopkins of trails and bike routes on Minnetonka
Boulevard from 169 to Highway 100. A $40,000 grant from Hennepin County is funding
80% of the study cost. City of Minnetonka is the lead and hired Hart/Howerton as
consultants to assist with the study.
• Mayor Jacobs is co-chair, and staff is participating in Active Living Hennepin County. This
is a three-year effort to comprehensively address the issue of physical inactivity by developing
a set of tools, policies, programs and promotions for communities in Hennepin County.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota is funding the effort, and City of St. Louis Park will
receive $5,000 annually for its participation.
• Cooperating and tracking a Metropolitan Council study of pedestrian and bicycle facilities
along all transit corridors outside Minneapolis. Minnetonka Boulevard is among the studies’
high priority corridors. The Active Living; Sidewalks and Trail Plan lists potential transit
stop accessibility, lighting and amenity improvements which may be eligible for later grant
rounds. The study is funded by a Federal Non-motorized Transportation Program grant
administered by Transit for Livable Communities. Metropolitan Council hired Howard R.
Green Company to assist with the study.
Implementation Planning:
Staff is preparing a more detailed Implementation Plan to respond to the City Council’s questions
and concerns raised last year. This report provides additional information about the high and
secondary priorities identified for trail, sidewalk, bike route, intersection and bridge/tunnel crossings
improvements. These recommended priorities were refined by staff, but determined throughout the
process with substantial public input. These recommendations tied directly to public health, safety
and well-being. The logic behind the priorities are based on the following objectives:
• Focus on key destinations. Segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the
community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rate higher.
• Focus on Transportation. Routes that provide north-south connections through the
community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rate higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking. The ultimate goal is to provide a quarter-mile “city” grid
of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill gaps in the city
pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain intersections, and provide
crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and highway barriers rate higher.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails
DISCUSSION:
The City Council does not need to decide any policy, project or design issues at this meeting, but
Council feedback to staff on the general policies, direction and draft priorities lists/maps described
below and in the report attachments would be helpful.
A few highlights of the draft Implementation Plan recommendations:
• Capital and Maintenance Budgeting. The implementation plan will estimate costs of the
improvements and creates a concept for scheduling improvements.
• Consider changing the City policy related to special assessments for “neighborhood”
sidewalks to fund up to ¼ mile of sidewalk installation annually in neighborhoods. This
may be done as the City does other road work in the area, initiated by the City for high
priority neighborhood sidewalks, or through a competitive neighborhood application
process.
• Continued support for sidewalks on both sides of every street (current requirement of the
subdivision ordinance).
• Continued support for bicycle lanes on roads over 3,000 AADT (encouraged in the
subdivision ordinance).
• Adopt a Complete Streets policy (consider the needs of transit, bicycle, pedestrian and
vehicle travel modes in road design and maintenance). The City Council expressed some
level of support for this idea in a resolution adopted relating to Active Living Hennepin
County.
• Consider adopting a Green Streets policy. This not only includes Complete Streets goals,
but adds landscaping, low impact design, and storm water management goals into the mix.
WHAT IS NEXT:
Over the next year, staff foresees the completing the following tasks.
• Finalize priority recommendations
• Submit final policy recommendations to City Council
• Research and apply for grants
• Determine funding sources for 2010-2015 capital improvement plan
• Budget for project delivery and maintenance of improved and expanded system
• Determine public process for identifying neighborhood system priorities
• Engage in a public process with City Council and neighborhoods to identify appropriate
design of specific projects after City Council approves a capital improvements plan
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There are maps and lists of projects and associated capital costs attached for your review. These do
not yet incorporate project delivery and maintenance costs associated with improving and expanding
the pedestrian and bicycle systems. Some important projects are already in the works (i.e.
Wooddale/Hwy overpass, Park Place Boulevard trail, etc.).
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails
Staff will provide a one page summary with the grand total and concepts for scheduling
improvements to Council at the meeting. The actual schedule may be accelerated based on grant
fund availability, or delayed based on competing resources determined through the budget process.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Recommendations are intended to advance the vision – St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged
community with an organized and expanded network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachments:
• Snapshot: Active Living, Sidewalks and Trails Plan – Complete City Network and Community
Gathering Centers Exhibit
• At-A-Glance: Implementation Plans
o Trails
Priorities Map
Priorities List & Costs
o Bicycle Routes
Priorities Map
Priorities List & Costs
o Sidewalks
Priorities Map
High Priorities Lists & Costs
Secondary Priorities List & Costs
o Intersections & Bridges
Priorities Map
Priorities Lists & Costs
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
$
!
$
!)! )
$
!$ !
) !) (
$
$%
$
!+( , $
!%,
*!(
!%,
!
$
#& (
%%! (
(
!
$
()$,
), $
$!!
$
")!
$, %$,
'
$
$
!) &$)
&! $
1/4 Mile Radius
1/2 Mile Radius
Current Walk Zone
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Texa-Tonka
Knollwood
Mall
Excelsior
& Grand
Hoigaard
Village
Duke
Site
1/4 Mile Radius
Walking Distance to Transit Stops Walking Distance to Parks
1/4 Mile Conceptual Sidewalk Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
1/2 Mile Conceptual Bicycle Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/4
Mile Grid
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/2
Mile Grid
Analysis Diagrams Draft Oct. 6, 2007
Walking Distance to Schools Walking Distance to Community
Gathering Centers
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 5
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 6
St Louis Park Active Living
Updated Priorities 9/26/08
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TRAILS
Priority Street Segment Segment Length (ft) Cost per ft Total Cost Date
1 Beltline Blvd LRT to Monterey Dr 45,000 2009 CIP
1 Cedar Lake Blvd JCC west 35,000 2010 CIP
1 Walker St Louisiana Ave to Walker Park 30,000 2010 CIP
1 Monterey Dr Rec Ctr to Excelsior Blvd 2,500 2010 CIP
112,500$
PROPOSED NEW TRAILS
Priority Street Segment Segment Length (ft) Cost per ft Total Cost
1 Louisiana Ave S 32nd St W to Walker St 2462 43 105,856
1 Park Place Blvd I-394 to Cedar Lake Road 2500 43 107,511
1 Pennsylvania Ave Pennsylvania Ave to Oregon Ave 270 43 11,610
5232 224,978$ 0.99 Miles
2 Toledo Ave S 27th St W to Minnetonka Blvd 2586 43 111,181
2 West side of TH 100 26th St Ped Bridge to BNSF Railroad 2287 43 98,321
2 Minnehaha Creek Excelsior Blvd to Meadowbrook Rd 3660 43 157,360
8532 366,862$ 1.62 Miles
Notes:
1. Existing trails data taken from 2009-2013 CIP data provided by the City.
2. Proposed figures provided by St. Louis Park City staff.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 7
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 8
St Louis Park Active Living
Updated Priorities 9/26/08
HIGH PRIORITY BIKE ROUTES N/S
Type Street Segment Segment Length (ft) Cost per ft Total Cost
Bike Lane Texas Ave S Wayzata Blvd to Cedar Lake Road 4000 8.50 34,000
Bikeway Virginia Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to 28th St W 1436 1.50 12,202
Bikeway 28th St W Virginia Ave S to Texas Ave S 350 1.50 525
Bikeway 26th St W Edgewood Ave S to Dakota Ave S 316 1.50 474
Bikeway Dakota Ave S 26th Ave S to Wooddale Ave S 5431 1.50 8,147
Bikeway Alabama Ave S 36th St W to 41st St W 3472 1.50 5,208
Bikeway Brookside Ave S 41st St W to Yosemite Ave S 3372 1.50 5,058
Bike Lane Beltline Blvd CSAH 25 to 36th St W 2886 8.50 24,529
Bikeway Park Commons Drive Quentin Ave S to Grand Way 1730 1.50 14,704
Bikeway Quentin Ave S Excelsior Blvd to 44th St W 5343 1.50 45,412
28335 150,259 5.37 Miles
HIGH PRIORITY BIKE ROUTES E/W
Type Street Segment Segment Length (ft) Cost per ft Total Cost
Bikeway Cedar Lake Rd Zarthan Ave S to Pedestrian Bridge 6020 1.50 9,030
Bikeway Minnetonka Blvd Hwy 100 to France Ave S 5523 1.50 46,946
11543 55,976 2.19 Miles
SECONDARY PRIORITY BIKE ROUTES
Type Street Segment Segment Length (ft) Cost per ft Total Cost
Bikeway 28th St W Texas Ave S to Zarthan Ave S 6520 1.50 9,780
Bike Lane Texas Ave S 28th St W to Highway 7 6059 8.50 51,502
Bike Lane Lake St W Walker St to Minnetonka Blvd 5019 8.50 42,662
Bike Lane 36th St W Wooddale Ave S to Monterey Dr 3711 8.50 31,544
Bike Lane Monterey Dr 36th St W to Excelsior Blvd 1858 8.50 15,794
Bikeway Walker St Texas Ave S to Lake St W 4435 1.50 6,653
Bikeway Wooddale Ave Dakota Ave S to 36th St W 1987 1.50 16,886
Bikeway 28th St W Virginia Ave S to Texas Ave S 400 1.50 3,400
Bike Lane Louisiana Ave S Wayzata Blvd S to Excelsior Blvd 16321 8.50 138,729
Bike Lane Wayzata Blvd Ford Rd to 14th St W 1252 8.50 10,638
Bike Lane France Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to Minnetonka Blvd 5069 8.50 43,087
Bikeway Franklin Ave W Westwood Nature Ctr to 14th St W 5826 1.50 8,738
Bikeway 14th St W Wayzata Blvd to Hillsboro Ave S 1285 1.50 1,928
Bikeway Cedar Lake Rd Pedestrian Bridge to France Ave S 1429 1.50 2,143
Bikeway France Ave S Randall Ave to 40th St W 4958 1.50 7,437
Bikeway 38th St W Excelsior Blvd to France Ave S 2046 1.50 3,069
Bikeway Park Place Blvd I-394 to Cedar Lake Road 3029 1.50 4,544
Bikeway 36th St W TH 169 to Texas Ave S 4185 1.50 6277.5
Bike Lane Shelard Pkwy Betty Crocker Dr to Wayzata Blvd 4069 8.50 34,586
Bike Lane Zarthan Ave S Wayzata Blvd to Cedar Lake Rd 1687 8.50 14,338
Bike Lane Quentin Ave S Douglas Ave to Cedar Lake Rd 1420 8.50 12,072
Bikeway Ford Rd Runnymeade Ln to Crestridge Dr 2179 1.50 3,269
Bikeway Wayzata Blvd Texas Ave S to Zarthan Ave S 6642 1.50 9,963
Bikeway Edgewood Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad 1704 1.50 2,557
Bikeway 26th St W Toldedo Ave S to France Ave S 4397 1.50 6,596
Bikeway Quentin Ave S 26th St W to 28th St W 1317 1.50 1,975
Bikeway 28th St W Quentin Ave S to Ottawa Ave S 662 1.50 994
Bikeway Ottawa Ave S 28th St W to Minntonka Blvd 1332 1.50 1,997
Bikeway Franklin Ave W Pennsylvania Ave S to Louisiana Ave S 1332 1.50 1,998
Bikeway 28th St W Yosemite Ave S to Webster Ave S 626 1.50 939
Bikeway Webster Ave S 28th St W to 27th St W 669 1.50 1,004
Bikeway 27th St W Webster Ave S to Utica Ave S 675 1.50 1,013
Bikeway Utica Ave S 27th St W to Pedestrian Bridge 327 1.50 491
Bikeway 33rd St W Virginia Ave S to Rhode Island Ave S 1304 1.50 1,956
Bikeway 33rd St W Louisiana Ave S to Dakota Ave S 2894 1.50 4,340
102104 495,116$ 19.34 Miles
Notes:
1. Figure based on $8/ lft obtained from SLP, assuming signing and striping only. Added 6% for contingency to get $8.5/ft.
2. Bike lanes require a minimum street width of 28 feet with no parking; 40 feet with two lanes of parking;
and 64 feet with four driving lanes and two lanes of parking.
3. A bikeway is any road that may legally be used by bicycles whether or not the road is signed or striped
for bicycle use.
4. Bike lanes are preferrable for high priority segments. This may require removal of on-street parking.
5. North/south bike routes are preferenced over east/west routes.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 9
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 10
St Louis Park Active LivingUpdated Priorities 9/26/08HIGH PRIORITY CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALKSCity Ranking StreetSegmentSegment Length (ft)Cost per lin ft 1Total Cost CIP/Date SubtotalsMaint. Costs1,2MSA Route31Excelsior Blvd Louisiana Ave. to Minnehaha Creek (County project) 8004334,400$ 2009 CIP333$ 141st St W Utica Ave S to Wooddale Ave S9714341,753$ 405$ 1Louisiana Ave S Lake St W to Oxford St13294357,128$ 554$ X1Louisiana Ave S Minnehaha Creek to Excelsior Blvd7524332,344$ 165,625$ 313$ X233rd St W Texas Ave S to Rhode Island Ave S6484327,870$ 270$ X2Cedar Lake Rd Viginia Ave S to Texas Ave S5764324,762$ 52,632$ 240$ X531st St W Dakota Ave S to Colorado Ave S4924321,161$ 205$ 528th St W Zarthan Ave S to Webster Ave e9274339,840$ 61,001$ 386$ 6Louisiana Ave S 14th St W to Cedar Lake Road319243137,237$ 2010 CIP 137,237$ 1,330$ X-Wooddale Ave S Excelsior Blvd to Vernon Ave S141436,074$ 6,074$ 59$ 9827422,569$ 4,095$ 1.86 MilesHIGH PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTAINED SIDEWALKSCity Ranking StreetSegmentSegment Length (ft)Cost per lin ft 1Total Cost CIP/Date SubtotalsMaint. Costs1,2MSA Route31Browndale Ave Wooddale Ave S to Morningside Rd10514345,189 438$ 136th St W Aquila Ave S to Wyoming Ave S12554353,981 99,170$ 523$ X236th St W Quebec Ave S to Walker St11244348,323 2011 CIP468$ X2France Ave S W 22nd St to W 26th St 22644397,370 2010 CIP944$ 3Quentin Ave S Excelsior Blvd to 40th St W4284318,385 18,385$ 178$ X4Zarthan Ave S South of Minnetonka Blvd to Lake St W8424336,196 351$ 4Zarthan Ave S 33rd St W to Hamilton St10504345,157 438$ 4Hamilton St Alabama Ave S to Zarthan Ave S3494314,986 145$ 439th St W Natchez Ave S to Inglewood Ave S16504370,942 687$ 439th St W Inglewood Ave S to France Ave S9474340,702 207,981$ 394$ 531st St W Texas Ave S to Dakota Ave S523043224,898 2,179$ 5Quebec Ave S 31st St W to Oak Hill Park6124326,308 255$ 533rd St W Aquila Ave S to Viginia Ave S17484375,147 728$ 536 1/2 St W Monterey Dr to Excelsior Blvd16934372,817 706$ 5Browndale Ave S 43rd 1/2 St north (partial block)168437,240 406,410$ 70$ 6Jersey Ave S South from Minnetonka Blvd (partial block)146436,261 61$ 6Maryland Ave S South from Minntonka Blvd (partial block)146436,278 12,539$ 61$ -Wooddale Ave S 35th St W to Highway 73024312,998 126$ X-Aquila Ln North from Cavell Ln (partial block)6304327,083 262$ X-Park Place Blvd 16th St W to Gamble Dr (partial block)10804346,438 450$ X-Gamble Drive Park Place Blvd to east (partial block)5164322,170 108,688$ 215$ 23229998,867$ 9,679$ 4.40 Miles
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 11
SECONDARY PRIORITY SIDEWALKSCity Ranking StreetSegmentSegment Length (ft)Cost per lin ft 1Total Cost CIP/Date SubtotalsMaint. Costs1,2MSA Route36Hillsboro Ave S 14th St W to W Franklin Ave13844359,522 577$ X6W 18th St Hillsboro Ave S to Flag Ave S4844320,825 202$ X6Flag Ave S W 18th St to W Franklin Ave 4884321,005 204$ X6Quentin Ave S 27th St W to 28th St W6224326,752 259$ 625 1/2 St W TH 100 to W 26th St8234335,385 343$ X6Quentin Ave S North from 28th St W (partial block)51432,204 21$ 6Maryland Ave S South from Minntonka Blvd (partial block)146436,278 61$ 6Jersey Ave S South from Minnetonka Blvd (partial block)146436,260 61$ 6Beltline Blvd Highway 7 to 36th St W285943122,922 301,154$ 1,191$ X7Cedar Lake Rd Quentin Ave S to Pedestrian Bridge19704384,692 821$ 7Morningside Rd Mackey Ave S to Browndale Ave10324344,358 430$ 7Aquila Ln South from Minnetonka Blvd (partial block)5194322,308 151,358$ 216$ 814th St .W Wayzata Blvd to Flag Ave S13434357,756 560$ 8Westmoreland Ln/W 14th St to Westwood Nature Center403943173,683 1,683$ 8Quentin Ave S Douglas Ave to Cedar Lake Rd258543111,157 1,077$ 8Raleigh Ave S Minnetonka Blvd to 27th St W18484379,464 770$ 8Aquila Ln Flag Ave S to Cavell Ln15634367,199 651$ X8Flag Ave S Aquila Ln to Minnehaha Circle S7824333,624 326$ 8Pennsylvania Ave 16th St W to Cedar Lake Road337143144,948 1,405$ X8Texas Ave S Wayzata Blvd to Cedar Lake Road507843218,352 886,182$ 2,116$ X10Franklin Ave W Hampshire Ave to Cedar Lake Rd14054360,413 585$ 10Zarthan Ave S 16th St W to Cedar Lake Rd6474327,818 270$ 10Edgewood Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad tracks16584371,285 691$ X10Cedar Lake Rd Pedestrian Bridge to France Ave S14234361,170 593$ 10Basswood Rd Monterey Ave S to France Ave S21124390,833 880$ 1025th St W W 26th St to Sumter Ave S2974312,751 124$ 10Sumter Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to 25th St W10714346,068 446$ 10W 26th St Virginia Ave S to W 25th St3134313,447 130$ 10Virgina Ave S Cedar Lake Rd to 28th St W14204361,081 592$ X1028th St W Virginia Ave St to Texas Ave S3904316,783 163$ X10Ottawa Ave S 28th St W to 29th St W6164326,476 488,124$ 257$ -Cedar Lake Rd 16th St W east (partial block)6294327,033 262$ -Minnetonka Blvd Th 169 to Aquila Ln336243144,545 1,401$ -Excelsior Blvd Meadowbrook Blvd to Minnehaha Creek14414361,963 2012 CIP600$ -Natchez Ave S 39th St W to 41st St W5644324,233 235$ -Brookside Ave S 42nd St W to Yosemite Ave9324340,060 388$ -Georgia Ave S Minnetonka Blvd to 31st St W5934325,478 323,311$ 247$ 500032,150,129$ 20,835$ 9.47 MilesNotes:1. City provided a figure of $2,200 per mile for maintenance.2. Assumes no additional maintenance costs for neighborhood sidewalks.3. MSA route designation allows for using MSA funds for sidewalk construction.Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 12
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 13
St Louis Park Active Living
Updated Priorities 9/26/08
2007 ESTIMATED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT COSTS & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Intersection Signal Countdown TimerCrosswalks ($10,500 ea) Pedestrian Ramp Pedestrian Stop Button in Island Grade-Separated Xing Interchange2 Advanced Stop Bars TotalCIP/DateCity Identified Priority Intersections
Hwy 7 & Blake Rd 4,000 5,000 9,000$
38th St W & France Ave 21,000 21,000$
Total 30,000$
High Priority Intersections
Cedar Lake Road & Texas Ave 4,000 4,000$
Hwy 7 & Wooddale Ave 18,000,000 18,000,000$ 2009 CIP
Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave 4,000 5,000 18,000,000 18,009,000$ 2012 CIP
Texas Ave S & W 36th St W 4,000 4,000$
Total 36,017,000$
Priority Intersections
Louisiana Ave & W 27th St 4,000 4,000$
Louisiana Ave & W 28th St 4,000 4,000$
Minnetonka Boulevard & Dakota Ave S 4,000 4,000$
Hwy 7 & Ottawa Ave S 4,000 5,000 9,000$
Beltline Blvd & LRT Trail 1,500,000 1,500,000$
Wooddale Ave & LRT Trail 1,500,000 1,500,000$
W 36th St & Woodale Ave S 4,000 4,000$
Hwy 7 & Texas Ave S 4,000 5,000 9,000$
Excelsior Blvd & Yosemite Ave S (under construction)21,000 2,000 375 23,375$
Monterey Dr & 36 1/2 St W 180,000 4,000 375 184,375$
W 36th St & Phillips Pkwy (Regional Trail Crossing)180,000 4,000 184,000$
Park Place Blvd & 16th St W 4,000 4,000$
Total 3,429,750$
Notes:
1. Prices shown are estimated construction dollars for 2007.
2. Federal funds and other cost sharing may reduce the estimated cost for interchange construction.
Pedestrian Bridges
High Priority Pedestrian Bridges Cost
Edgewood Ave S at Dakota Park over BNSF Railroad (New)1,500,000
Virginia Avenue under BNSF Railroad (Reconstruct)1,000,000
Total 2,500,000$
Priority Pedestrian Bridges
41st St W over TH 100 (Improvements)800,000
Cedar Lake Rd over BNSF Railroad at west side of TH 100 (New)1,500,000
Total 2,300,000$
SRF Consulting Group
#6016
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Strategic Vision Update Expand Network of Sidewalks & Trails Page 14
AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 6, 2008
7:15 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes September 2, 2008
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Sale Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC
(Anderson Builders)
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment, Assumption and Consent
To Assignment relating to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the
EDA and Oak Hill 3501 LLC
7b. Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center
LLC
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Highway 7 Business Center LLC.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an interfund loan agreement for the
Highway 7 Business Center TIF District.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, John Basill, Jeff Jacobs, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki
and Susan Sanger.
Commissioners absent: C. Paul Carver
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Finance
Director (Mr. DeJong) Assistant Finance Director (Mr. Swanson) and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Schmidt).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes June 16, 2008
It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Paprocki, to approve
the EDA minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0.
4. Approval of Agenda - None
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. 2009 HRA Levy Preliminary Certification
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Minutes September 2 2008
It was moved by Commissioner Paprocki, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 08-09 authorizing the proposed HRA Levy pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6 and approval of a proposed budget for fiscal year
2009
The motion passed 6-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for Filing Vendor Claims for the period August 30, 2008 through October 3,
2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:42:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
812.39IMPOUND LOT / WATER TOWER PROP IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMEC GEOMATRIX INC
812.39
3,717.30BASS LAKE/EDI ADVERTISINGAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
3,717.30
19,471.07DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARR ENGINEERING CO
19,471.07
690.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER FOR POLICY, PLANNING &
690.00
5,000.002002 GOTI REF BONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
650.58AQUILA COMMONS TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
789.33ELMWOOD TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58WOLFE LAKE TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58HOIGAARD TIF AMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.59HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER TIF ADMN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,186.25HOIGAARD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.59OAK PARK VILLAGE TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.59EXCELSIOR BLVD TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.59TRUNK HWY 7 TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.59HSTI TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58VICTORIA PONDS TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58PARK CTR HOUSING TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58CSM TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58MILL CITY TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58PARK COMMONS TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.58EDGEWOOD TIF ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,083.75
666.66HRA LEVY LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
666.66
5,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGHART HOWERTON
5,000.00
7,823.75DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
7,823.75
332.47HRA LEVY LEGAL SERVICESHONOLD, MARCIA
332.47
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:42:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -08/30/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
334.96HRA LEVY LEGAL SERVICESJACOBS, JEFF
334.96
45.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
136.01HSTI TIF ADMIN LEGAL SERVICES
181.01
3,000.00HRA LEVY LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
50.84DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
50.84
208.23BASS LAKE/EDI ADVERTISINGREED BUSINESS INFORMATION
208.26BASS LAKE/EDI IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
416.49
1,039.55BASS LAKE/EDI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
1,039.55
128.70BASS LAKE/EDI IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUN NEWSPAPERS
128.70
Report Totals 59,748.94
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 3
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
City Council Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment, Assumption and Consent To Assignment
relating to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill 3501 LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA and City Council approve of the Assignment, Assumption and Consent to
Assignment relating to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill
3501 LLC?
BACKGROUND:
On December 15, 2003 the EDA and Anderson Builders (Oak Hill 3501 LLC and Redeveloper)
entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract which resulted in the construction of the Oak
Hill Office Building located at 3555 Louisiana Ave S. (the Northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue &
Walker Street). Anderson Builders has recently agreed to sell the office building to R and N Real
Estate LLC (St. Louis Park based Twin Cities Periodontics). Anderson Builders plans to remain in
the building through the summer of 2009 as it constructs a new office building next door. Once
Anderson relocates into its new building, Twin Cities Periodontics plans to customize the Oak Hill
building which it plans to occupy in early 2010.
Pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract, the Redeveloper has certain rights and responsibilities
regarding any assignment of the Redevelopment Contract, and the “Redevelopment Property”. The
EDA agreed in the Contract to consent to the transfer of the Redeveloper’s interest under the
Redevelopment Contract to a transferee upon compliance with the requirements of Section 8.2 of
the Redevelopment Agreement.
The Redeveloper, pursuant to a Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 2008, has agreed to assign all of
its rights, interests and obligations accruing under the Redevelopment Contract subsequent to
transfer of the Redevelopment Property to R and N Real Estate LLC.
The Redeveloper has requested the consent of the EDA of the assignment of all it’s obligations and
rights under the Redevelopment Contract and seeks to be released from it’s obligations under that
agreement.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 2
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
An “Assignment, Assumption, and Consent to Assign” (the “Assignment”) has been prepared which
addresses the transfer of the Redevelopment Contract and its subject property. One feature of this
Assignment is that the assignor (Oak Hill 3501 LLC) is being released from any future liability
accruing under the Redevelopment Agreement, but is not being released from any liability that may
have accrued to the date of the Assignment. This requirement is consistent with Section 8.2 of the
Redevelopment Contract and relates to potential liability arising from environmental concerns
relating to construction and operation of the office building, since this project was originally subject
to the Reilly Tar Consent Decree. In this regard, it appears that the Redeveloper has complied with
all of its requirements under the Redevelopment Contract concerning the Reilly Tar Consent Decree
and the environmental requirements imposed upon it when it constructed the office building.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Assignment & Assumption does not have a direct financial impact on the EDA.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Resolution approving Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment
Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 3
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING “ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT” (“ASSIGNMENT”) RELATING TO
THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND OAK HILL 3501 LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and
redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"),
and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project") pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is
redevelopment of certain underutilized property in the City known as the Oak Hill I site for
office/commercial development (the “Oak Hill I Project”).
1.03. There has been presented before the Board an “ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION
AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT (“Assignment”) among the Authority, Oak Hill 3501 LLC
(the Assignor”) and R and N Real Estate LLC (the “Assignee”), setting forth the terms and conditions
of the Assignment to the Assignee of that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”)
between the Authority and Oak Hill 3501 LLC.
1.04. The Assignment provides for all of the Assignor’s interest in the Contract and the Oak
Hill I Project being transferred to the Assignee, which accepts the Assignment and is responsible for
complying with the Contract in the future. The Assignor is being released from future requirements and
liability arising under the Contract, but remains liable for any as yet undiscovered liability accrued to the
date of the Assignment.
1.05. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and the Contract and finds that the execution
thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City
and its residents.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 4
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Assignment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to
modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President
and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive
evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
Authority the Assignment, the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by
the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 6, 2008
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 5
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
Execution Copy
ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
THIS ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
(“Assignment”) made as of this 6th day of October, 2008, by and between OAK HILL 3501 LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignor”) and R and N REAL ESTATE LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”), THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (“EDA”), and CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (“City”)
RECITALS:
A. Assignor entered into that certain “Purchase and Redevelopment Contract by and between
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Oak Hill 3501 LLC, dated as of
March 19, 2004,” and filed on March 22, 2004, in the office of the Hennepin County
Recorder as Document No. 8316349 (“Redevelopment Agreement”);
B. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, Assignor has certain rights and responsibilities
respecting any assignment of the Redevelopment Agreement, and the “Redevelopment
Property” as that term is defined in the Redevelopment Agreement;
C. The EDA agreed in the Redevelopment Agreement to consent to the transfer of Assignor’s
interest under the Redevelopment Agreement to a transferee upon compliance with the
requirements of Section 8.2 of the Redevelopment Agreement;
D. Assignor, pursuant to a Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 2008 (the “Purchase
Agreement”), has agreed to assign all of its rights, interests and obligations accruing under
the Redevelopment Agreement subsequent to transfer of the Redevelopment Property to R
and N Real Estate LLC (“Assignee”);
E. Assignor has requested the written consent of the EDA to Assignor’s assignment of all its
obligations and rights under the Redevelopment Agreement, and seeks to be released from
said obligations accruing thereunder on and after the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Assignment. Assignor does hereby grant, transfer and assign to Assignee, all of its
rights, obligations and interests in the Redevelopment Agreement and subject to the
following exceptions and limitations:
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 6
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
a. Any action, consent, or warranty or approval granted or made by
Assignor pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement prior to the date
hereof shall be binding upon Assignee.
b. Assignee hereby assumes for the benefit of the EDA and City all the
obligations of Assignor accruing on and after the date hereof as set forth
in the Redevelopment Agreement.
c. Assignor remains liable to the EDA for any liability it may have under the
Redevelopment Agreement accruing prior to the date hereof but is hereby
released from any liability under the Redevelopment Agreement accruing
on and after the date hereof.
2. Acceptance of Assignment. Assignee hereby accepts this Assignment and assumes
and agrees to faithfully abide by perform and discharge each and every term,
covenant and condition of the Redevelopment Agreement to be performed by the
Assignor thereunder, from and after the date hereof and to defend and hold Assignor
and Greg Anderson Builders LLC harmless from any lawsuits, claims, damages, costs
and expenses, including actual attorney fees and disbursements arising in connection
with the Redevelopment Agreement and the collateral Agreement (assumption) in
respect thereto dated March 19, 2004, except as to matters accruing prior to the date
hereof, or any other obligations specifically retained by Assignor and set forth in
Paragraph 1 above.
3. Consent to Assignment. The EDA acknowledges that all of the Assignor’s rights
under the Redevelopment Agreement accruing at any time and all of Assignor’s
obligations under the Redevelopment Agreement, accruing on or after the date
hereof, are assigned to Assignee, and the EDA hereby consents to the Assignment;
provided, however, Assignor reserves non-exclusive rights to indemnity and/or
defense under the Redevelopment Agreement (and such collateral Agreement) as to
matters accruing prior to the date hereof. The Assignment specifically, and without
limitation, does not release the Assignor from any liability it may have accruing to
the EDA prior to the date hereof.
4. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors
and assigns of the parties hereto; provided that the Assignee shall not assign its
respective rights and obligations under the Redevelopment Agreement except in
compliance with the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement.
5. Only Written Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified in any manner or
terminated except by an instrument in writing by the parties hereto.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 7
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption Agreement
as of the date first indicated above.
1 OAK HILL 3501 LLC
(“ASSIGNOR”)
By ________________________
Its: ________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ___ day of October, 2008, by
_____________________, the _____________ of Oak Hill 3501 LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 8
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
R and N REAL ESTATE LLC
(“ASSIGNEE”)
By:______________________
Its: _______________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ___ day of October, 2008, by
_____________________, the __________________ of R and N Real Estate LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 9
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ___ day of October, 2008, by
_____________________and ___________________, the President and Executive Director of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body politic and corporate, on behalf of
the Authority.
Notary Public
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7a) Page 10
Subject: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ___ day of October, 2008, by
_____________________and ___________________, the Mayor and the City Manager of the
City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Michael T. Norton, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
220 South Sixth Street, Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-337-9300
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 7b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St.
Louis Park, and Highway 7 Business Center LLC.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an interfund loan agreement for the Highway 7 Business
Center TIF District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support providing Highway 7 Business Center LLC with an additional $95,000 in
tax increment financing to cover a portion of the environmental and business relocation cost
overages incurred in conjunction with the Highway 7 Corporate Center project?
BACKGROUND:
At the September 8, 2008 study session, Paul Hyde with Real Estate Recycling (representing
Highway 7 Business Center LLC) discussed his company’s request for an additional $280,000 in tax
increment related to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project. Mr. Hyde explained that his firm
incurred a total budget overrun of approximately $1.6 million on the project. Of this amount,
approximately $1.3 million was attributable to building construction costs which his business
covered. The remaining $280,000 in expenditures was attributable to greater than anticipated
environmental cleanup, legal fees and business relocation/reestablishment costs over which his firm
had little control. After much discussion, there was consensus support for providing $115,000 in
additional tax increment financing to cover a portion of the environmental and business relocation
cost overages incurred by the Redeveloper in conjunction with the project.
Recently, the EDA’s relocation consultant determined that All Hours Towing is due approximately
$20,000 in additional Business Relocation and Reestablishment expenses as a result of the
redevelopment of the former Golden Auto/National Lead site from which All Hours was relocated.
Under Section 3.6 of the EDA’s Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC the
Redeveloper agreed to indemnify the EDA from all relocation claims due as result of implementation
of the agreement. More recently the IRS served a levy on both the EDA and the City as a result of
All Hours being in arrears for payment of federal payroll withholding taxes. According to the IRS
notice any funds otherwise payable to All Hours are subject to these levies and are required to be
paid promptly to the IRS. In order to satisfy the levy obligation with the IRS the relocation
payment must be made in short order. Real Estate Recycling has disclosed that it does not have the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 2
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
financial capacity to make such a payment at this time due to current financial restraints facing the
firm. It has therefore agreed to accept a $20,000 reduction in the amount of additional tax
increment to be provided by the EDA. The EDA would then make the required relocation payment
to the IRS from the Development Fund and then be reimbursed with tax increment generated from
the project. By adopting the attached Interfund Loan Resolution the EDA is authorizing to repay
the Development Fund $20,000 out of available tax increment once its obligation to the
Redeveloper is fully paid.
Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract
The attached Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center
LLC (Redeveloper) contains the following revisions which are summarized below.
In order to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the overage costs noted above, it is proposed
that the EDA issue, and the Redeveloper purchase, additional Notes (the “Additional Notes”) in the
maximum amount of $95,000. The Notes will be issued in two series: (i) Series 2008C issued as
reimbursement for additional environmental costs in the amount of $72,000; and (ii) Series 2008D
issued as reimbursement of additional business relocation costs in the amount of $23,000. The
Series 2008C Note is secured by available Hazardous Substance Subdistrict Tax Increment together
with available Redevelopment District Tax Increment; and the Series 2008D Note is secured solely by
Available Redevelopment Increment.
The Additional Notes will be dated as of the date of delivery, and interest will accrue from that date.
The pledge of available Tax Increment to the Additional Notes will be subordinate to the pledge of
available Tax Increment to the original Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes.
The Redeveloper understands that the EDA makes no warranties regarding the amount of available
Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Additional Notes will be sufficient to pay the
principal and interest on the Additional Notes. Redeveloper further understands that estimates of
Tax Increment prepared by the EDA or its financial advisors in connection with the Highway 7
Corporate Center TIF District are not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may
rely.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center
LLC provides the firm with an additional $95,000 in tax increment financing to partially offset
greater than anticipated environmental and business relocation costs incurred in conjunction with
the Highway 7 Corporate Center project.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 3
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Commitment to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project is consistent with St. Louis Park’s vision
for protecting the environment and creating the jobs and tax base necessary to support the city’s
diverse population as well as fund infrastructure like trails, sidewalks, and other transportation.
Attachments: Resolution approving Third Amendment
Resolution authorizing Interfund Loan
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 4
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AND
AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM,
TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF ITS ADDITIONAL TAX INCREMENT
REVENUE NOTES TO HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER
LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Highway 7 Corporate Center Tax Increment Financing District. (the
“TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. The Authority and
City have further approved the establishment of a Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (the “Subdistrict”)
within the TIF District; and have approved that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between
the Authority, the City and Highway 7 Business Center LLC, dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended
by the First Amendment thereto dated as of September 18, 2006 and the Second Amendment
thereto dated as of November 6, 2006 (together, the “Agreement”).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell
its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public redevelopment costs of the Project. Such
bonds may be payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District or Subdistrict
or both and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is
in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Notes, Series
2008C and Series 2008D, (the “Notes”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs
of the Project.
1.02. Third Amendment Approved; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Notes. (a) The
Authority hereby approves the Third Amendment to the Agreement (the “Third Amendment”), and
authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute such Third Amendment in substantially
the form on file with the Authority, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the
transaction and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the Amendment by such
officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. The Authority further authorizes the President and
Executive Director to issue the Notes in accordance with the Third Amendment. All capitalized
terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement and Third Amendment unless
the context requires otherwise.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 5
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
(b) The Notes shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $95,000 to Highway 7
Business Center LLC (the "Owner"), in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner
under the Third Amendment and Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear
interest from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment, at the rate of 1.0%. The Notes
will be issued in two series: (i) Series 2008C (such year to be the year of issue; hereafter the “Series
2008C Note”), issued in the principal amount of $72,000; and (ii) Series 2008D (such year to be the
year of issue; hereafter the “Series 2008D Note”), issued in the principal amount of $23,000. The
Series 2008C Note is secured by Available Subdistrict Increment together with Available
Redevelopment Increment; and the Series 2008D Note is secured solely by Available Redevelopment
Increment, all as further described in the form of the Note herein. Authority hereby delegates to the
Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Notes are to be delivered, in accordance
with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substantially the following form:
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 6
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $________________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 2008__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
1.0%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received, certifies
that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Highway 7 Business Center LLC or registered assigns
(the "Owner"), the principal sum of $__________________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of
1.0% per annum, but solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. This Note is issued
pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority, the City of St. Louis
Park, and the Owner, dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended by that First Amendment thereto dated
as of September 18, 2006, that Second Amendment thereto dated as of November 6, 2006, and that
Third Amendment thereto dated as of October 6, 2008 (the “Agreement”), and capitalized terms
herein have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on August 1, 2009 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including August 1, 2027 (“Payment Dates”) in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued
interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and including
February 1, 2009 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and
added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner
may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any
coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the
payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days
and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. [Series C Note: Insert the following]
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 7
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Available Tax Increment. Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely
from and in the amount of, and in the following order of priority:
(a) “Available Redevelopment Increment,” which shall mean 95% of the Tax Increment
attributable to the Redevelopment Property (excluding any portion thereof attributable to the
Subdistrict) that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each
Payment Date on the Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for payment on such
Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Authority’s $2,100,000 Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 2008A dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008A Note”) and the Authority’s $360,000
Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008B dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008B Note”); provided,
however, Available Redevelopment Increment is allocated on each Payment Date to this Note and the
Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008D, pro rata based on the outstanding principal
balance of such notes as of the Payment Date; and
(b) “Available Subdistrict Increment,” which shall mean 95% of the Tax Increment
attributable to the captured net tax capacity of the Redevelopment Property in the Subdistrict,
calculated as described in the second sentence of Section 469.174, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, and that is
paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on the
Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for payment on such Payment Date of the
principal and interest then due on the Series 2008A Note; and
The revenues pledged in paragraphs (a) and (b) are referred to together as “Available Tax Increment.”
The pledge of Available Tax Increment hereunder is subordinate to the pledge of Available Tax
Increment to the Series 2008A Note and Series 2008B as and to the extent described in this section.
The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment
Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay the
entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal or accrued
interest that may remain after the final Payment on August 1, 2027, except from Available Tax
Increment attributable to property taxes paid in 2027 or prior years.
[Series D Note: Insert the following:]
Available Redevelopment Increment. Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of “Available Redevelopment Increment,” which shall mean 95%
of the Tax Increment attributable to the Redevelopment Property (excluding any portion thereof
attributable to the Subdistrict) that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months
preceding each Payment Date on the Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for
payment on such Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Authority’s $2,100,000
Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008A dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008A Note”) and the
Authority’s $360,000 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008B dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008B
Note”); provided, however, Available Redevelopment Increment is allocated on each Payment Date to
this Note and the Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008C, pro rata based on the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 8
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
outstanding principal balance of such notes as of the Payment Date. The pledge of Available
Redevelopment Increment hereunder is subordinate to the pledge of Available Redevelopment
Increment to the Series 2008A Note and Series 2008B Note as and to the extent described in this
paragraph
The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment
Date from any source other than Available Redevelopment Increment and the failure of the Authority
to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute
a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available
Redevelopment Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal
or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on August 1, 2027, except from Available
Redevelopment Increment attributable to property taxes paid in 2027 or prior years.
4. Default. Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement, the
Authority may exercise the remedies with respect to this Note described in Section 9.2 of the
Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Optional Prepayment. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this
Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to
be made under this Note.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$95,000 issued to aid in financing certain public development costs and administrative costs of a Project
undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and
is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on
October 6, 2008, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is a limited
obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment [Available
Redevelopment Increment] pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the
interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any
political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of
Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on
this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment [Available
Redevelopment Increment], and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of
Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest
on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without
coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is
transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City
Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly authorized in
writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the
Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 9
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such
transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate
principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates.
This Note shall not be transferred to any person (except to the extent permitted under the
Resolution or the Agreement) unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a
certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from
registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by
the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according
to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and
manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority has caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President
and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
______________________________
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the
City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Federal Tax I.D. No. 20-3416748
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 10
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Notes shall be issued as single typewritten notes
numbered R-1.
The Notes shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Notes
shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Notes shall be payable
by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and
the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Notes and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Notes.
(b) Transfer of Notes. Upon surrender for transfer of a Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name
of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and
maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Notes shall not be
transferred to any person (other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner, or to a lender as
security for financing necessary to construct the Minimum Improvements as defined in the Agreement)
unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a
form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until
such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by
the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such
Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its
refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Notes are at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Notes,
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 11
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
whether the Notes shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of,
the principal of and interest on such Notes and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to
any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge
the liability of the Authority upon such Notes to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Notes, the Registrar may
impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other
governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or
be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates and
tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and
in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses
and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed,
upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed,
and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or
indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the
Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it
and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or
destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall
not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Notes shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President
and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Notes shall cease to be
such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for
all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note have been
so executed, they shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with
the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Notes all Available Subdistrict Increment and/or Available Redevelopment Increment, as defined
in, and subject to the terms described in, the Notes. Available Subdistrict Increment and Available
Redevelopment Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes in
accordance with the terms of the form of Notes set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Notes are no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. The Authority irrevocably agrees
to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Subdistrict Increment and Available
Redevelopment Increment. Any Available Subdistrict Increment and Available Redevelopment
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 12
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for the TIF
District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. (a) The Authority will issue no obligations secured by
Available Subdistrict Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the pledge to the Series
2008A Note and Series 2008C Note.
(b) As described in the form of the Notes, Available Redevelopment Increment is pledged to
the Series 2008C Note and the Series 2008D Note on a parity basis, subordinate to the pledge to the
Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in whole
or in part with Available Redevelopment Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge to the Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes, and to the Series 2008C and Series 2008D Notes.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby
authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Notes certified copies of all
proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may
be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Notes as the same appear
from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all
such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of the
Third Amendment.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 6, 2008
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 13
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS
IN CONNECTION WITH HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER
TAX INCREMENTFINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The Authority has established the Highway 7 Corporate Center tax increment
financing district (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "EDA Project") all
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the “TIF Act”) and Sections
469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”).
1.02. The Authority may incur certain costs related to the TIF District, which costs may
be financed on a temporary basis from available Authority funds.
1.03. Under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the Authority is authorized to
advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally made in order to
finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF Act.
1.04. The Authority intends to advance funds from its Development Fund to pay
relocation costs related to the TIF District as more fully described in Section 3.6 of the Contract for
Private Redevelopment between the Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”), and Highway 7
Business Center, LLC, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now proposes to designate such advances
as an interfund loan in accordance with the terms of this resolution and the TIF Act.
Section 2. Repayment of Interfund Loan.
2.01. The Authority will advance, from its Development Fund, moneys to pay relocation
costs related to the TIF District, in the principal amount of $20,000. The Authority will reimburse
itself for such advances together with interest at the rate of 1% per annum (the “Interfund Loan”).
Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The interest rate is no more
than the greatest of the rate specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.75 and Section 549.09,
both in effect for calendar year 2008.
2.02. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-
annually on each February 1 and August 1 (each a “Payment Date”), commencing on February 1,
2028, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 14
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
2.03. Payments on the Interfund Loan will be made solely from Available Tax Increment,
defined as 95% of the tax increment from the TIF District received by the City from Hennepin
County in the six-month period before any Payment Date and not otherwise pledged to other
bonds, notes or obligations, including without limitation the TIF Notes described in the Agreement.
Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing
from the Closing Date will be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year
and added to principal until the first Payment Date, unless otherwise specified by the City Manager.
2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this resolution is pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty.
2.05. This resolution is evidence of an internal borrowing by the Authority in accordance
with Section 469.178, subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, and is a limited obligation payable solely from
Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. The Interfund Loan
shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political
subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority and the City. Neither the State of
Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest
on the Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment. The
Authority shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued
interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
2.06. The Authority may at any time make a determination to forgive the outstanding
principal amount and accrued interest on the Interfund Loan to the extent permissible under law.
2.07. The Authority may from time to time amend the terms of this Resolution to the
extent permitted by law, including without limitation amendment to the payment schedule and the
interest rate; provided that the interest rate may not be increased above the maximum specified in
Section 469.178. subd. 7 of the TIF Act.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 6, 2008
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 15
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Execution Copy
THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This Third Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) dated
as of October 6, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota
(the “Authority”), and HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (the “Redeveloper”).
RECITALS
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”)
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(the “Act”) within the City.
B. The City approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Highway 7 Corporate
Center Tax Increment Financing District and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (together, the “TIF
District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, made up of the area
developed by the Developer (the “Development Property”) and certain other property within the
Development District, administered by the Authority.
C. The City, Authority and Redeveloper executed a Contract for Private Redevelopment,
dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of September 18, 2006
and a Second Amendment thereto dated as of November 6, 2006 (collectively, the “Contract”),
whereunder the Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to reimburse
certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of minimum
improvements to the Redevelopment Property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Eligible Costs”
and the “Subdistrict Eligible Costs”).
D. The parties have now agreed to modify certain terms and conditions of the Contract
as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties
hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Addition of Section 3.13 of the Contract. The Contract is amended to add a
new Section 3.13 to read as follows:
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 16
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Section 3.13. Payment of Additional Costs. (a) The Authority acknowledges that
Redeveloper has incurred Redevelopment Eligible Costs and Subdistrict Eligible Costs in an amount
greater than budgeted to construct the Minimum Improvements (the “Additional Redevelopment
Eligible Costs” and the “Additional Subdistrict Eligible Costs”, and collectively, the “Additional Costs”).
In order to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the Additional Costs, the Authority will issue
and the Redeveloper will purchase additional Notes (the “Additional Notes”) in the maximum
aggregate principal amount of $95,000. The Additional Notes will be issued in two series: (i) Series
C, issued as reimbursement of any Additional Subdistrict Eligible Costs in the principal amount of
$72,000, and secured first, by Available Redevelopment Increment pledged on a pro rata basis with
the Series D Note, after payment or provision for payment on any Payment Date of the principal and
interest then due on the Authority’s $1,200,000 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008A dated July
24, 2008 (“Series 2008A Note”) and the Authority’s $360,000 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series
2008B dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008B Note”); and second, by Available Subdistrict Increment,
after payment or provision for payment on any Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on
the Series A Note; and (ii) Series D, issued as reimbursement of Additional Redevelopment Eligible
Costs in the principal amount of $23,000, and secured solely by Available Redevelopment Increment
pledged on a pro rata basis with the Series C Note, after payment or provision for payment on any
Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes.
The terms of the Additional Notes, including maturity and payment dates, will be substantially those
set forth in the authorizing resolution shown in Schedule L. The Additional Notes will be dated as
of the date of delivery, and interest will accrue from such date. The pledge of Available
Redevelopment Increment and Available Subdistrict Increment to the Additional Notes will be
subordinate to the pledge of Available Redevelopment Increment and Available Subdistrict
Increment to the Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes.
(c) The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the Authority makes no
representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Subdistrict Increment or Available
Redevelopment Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Additional Notes will be sufficient to pay
the principal and interest on the Additional Notes. Redeveloper further acknowledges that estimates
of Tax Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF
District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as
representations on which the Redeveloper may rely.
2. Addition of Schedule L. The Contract is amended to add a new Schedule L, attached to
this Amendment as Exhibit A.
3. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 17
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Authority, and the Developer have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By _________________________ By
Its President Its Mayor
By: _________________________ By
Its Executive Director Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of October, 2008, by
_______________ and _________________, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis
Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of October, 2008, by
_________________ and __________________, the President and Executive Director of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 18
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC
By
Its ________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2008,
by _______________, the _____________________ of Highway 7 Business Center LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 7b) Page 19
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Exhibit A
SCHEDULE L to CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AND
AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM,
TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF ITS ADDITIONAL TAX INCREMENT
REVENUE NOTES TO HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER
LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Highway 7 Corporate Center Tax Increment Financing District. (the
“TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. The Authority and
City have further approved the establishment of a Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (the “Subdistrict”)
within the TIF District; and have approved that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between
the Authority, the City and Highway 7 Business Center LLC, dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended
by the First Amendment thereto dated as of September 18, 2006 and the Second Amendment
thereto dated as of November 6, 2006 (together, the “Agreement”).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell
its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public redevelopment costs of the Project. Such
bonds may be payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District or Subdistrict
or both and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is
in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Notes, Series
2008C and Series 2008D, (the “Notes”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs
of the Project.
1.02. Third Amendment Approved; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Notes. (a) The
Authority hereby approves the Third Amendment to the Agreement (the “Third Amendment”), and
authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute such Third Amendment in substantially
the form on file with the Authority, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 20
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
transaction and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the Amendment by such
officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. The Authority further authorizes the President and
Executive Director to issue the Notes in accordance with the Third Amendment. All capitalized
terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement and Third Amendment unless
the context requires otherwise.
(b) The Notes shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $95,000 to Highway 7
Business Center LLC (the "Owner"), in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner
under the Third Amendment and Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear
interest from the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment, at the rate of 1.0%. The Notes
will be issued in two series: (i) Series 2008C (such year to be the year of issue; hereafter the “Series
2008C Note”), issued in the principal amount of $72,000; and (ii) Series 2008D (such year to be the
year of issue; hereafter the “Series 2008D Note”), issued in the principal amount of $23,000. The
Series 2008C Note is secured by Available Subdistrict Increment together with Available
Redevelopment Increment; and the Series 2008D Note is secured solely by Available Redevelopment
Increment, all as further described in the form of the Note herein. Authority hereby delegates to the
Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Notes are to be delivered, in accordance
with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substantially the following form:
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 21
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $________________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 2008__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
1.0%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received, certifies
that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Highway 7 Business Center LLC or registered assigns
(the "Owner"), the principal sum of $__________________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of
1.0% per annum, but solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. This Note is issued
pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority, the City of St. Louis
Park, and the Owner, dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended by that First Amendment thereto dated
as of September 18, 2006, that Second Amendment thereto dated as of November 6, 2006, and that
Third Amendment thereto dated as of October 6, 2008 (the “Agreement”), and capitalized terms
herein have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on August 1, 2009 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including August 1, 2027 (“Payment Dates”) in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued
interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and including
February 1, 2009 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and
added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner
may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any
coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the
payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days
and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 22
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
3. [Series C Note: Insert the following]
Available Tax Increment. Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely
from and in the amount of, and in the following order of priority:
(a) “Available Redevelopment Increment,” which shall mean 95% of the Tax Increment
attributable to the Redevelopment Property (excluding any portion thereof attributable to the
Subdistrict) that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each
Payment Date on the Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for payment on such
Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Authority’s $2,100,000 Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 2008A dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008A Note”) and the Authority’s $360,000
Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008B dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008B Note”); provided,
however, Available Redevelopment Increment is allocated on each Payment Date to this Note and the
Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008D, pro rata based on the outstanding principal
balance of such notes as of the Payment Date; and
(b) “Available Subdistrict Increment,” which shall mean 95% of the Tax Increment
attributable to the captured net tax capacity of the Redevelopment Property in the Subdistrict,
calculated as described in the second sentence of Section 469.174, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, and that is
paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on the
Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for payment on such Payment Date of the
principal and interest then due on the Series 2008A Note; and
The revenues pledged in paragraphs (a) and (b) are referred to together as “Available Tax Increment.”
The pledge of Available Tax Increment hereunder is subordinate to the pledge of Available Tax
Increment to the Series 2008A Note and Series 2008B as and to the extent described in this section.
The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment
Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay the
entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal or accrued
interest that may remain after the final Payment on August 1, 2027, except from Available Tax
Increment attributable to property taxes paid in 2027 or prior years.
[Series D Note: Insert the following:]
Available Redevelopment Increment. Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of “Available Redevelopment Increment,” which shall mean 95%
of the Tax Increment attributable to the Redevelopment Property (excluding any portion thereof
attributable to the Subdistrict) that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months
preceding each Payment Date on the Note and remains on hand after payment or provision for
payment on such Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Authority’s $2,100,000
Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008A dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008A Note”) and the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 23
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Authority’s $360,000 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008B dated July 24, 2008 (“Series 2008B
Note”); provided, however, Available Redevelopment Increment is allocated on each Payment Date to
this Note and the Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008C, pro rata based on the
outstanding principal balance of such notes as of the Payment Date. The pledge of Available
Redevelopment Increment hereunder is subordinate to the pledge of Available Redevelopment
Increment to the Series 2008A Note and Series 2008B Note as and to the extent described in this
paragraph
The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment
Date from any source other than Available Redevelopment Increment and the failure of the Authority
to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute
a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available
Redevelopment Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal
or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on August 1, 2027, except from Available
Redevelopment Increment attributable to property taxes paid in 2027 or prior years.
4. Default. Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement, the
Authority may exercise the remedies with respect to this Note described in Section 9.2 of the
Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Optional Prepayment. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this
Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to
be made under this Note.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$95,000 issued to aid in financing certain public development costs and administrative costs of a Project
undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and
is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on
October 6, 2008, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is a limited
obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment [Available
Redevelopment Increment] pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the
interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any
political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of
Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on
this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment [Available
Redevelopment Increment], and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of
Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest
on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 24
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without
coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is
transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City
Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly authorized in
writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the
Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the
Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such
transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate
principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates.
This Note shall not be transferred to any person (except to the extent permitted under the
Resolution or the Agreement) unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a
certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from
registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by
the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according
to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and
manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority has caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President
and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
______________________________
Executive Director President
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 25
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the
City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Federal Tax I.D. No. 20-3416748
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Notes shall be issued as single typewritten notes
numbered R-1.
The Notes shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Notes
shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Notes shall be payable
by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and
the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Notes and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Notes.
(b) Transfer of Notes. Upon surrender for transfer of a Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name
of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and
maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Notes shall not be
transferred to any person (other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner, or to a lender as
security for financing necessary to construct the Minimum Improvements as defined in the Agreement)
unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a
form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 26
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until
such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by
the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such
Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its
refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Notes are at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Notes,
whether the Notes shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of,
the principal of and interest on such Notes and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to
any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge
the liability of the Authority upon such Notes to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Notes, the Registrar may
impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other
governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or
be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates and
tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and
in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses
and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed,
upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed,
and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or
indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the
Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it
and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or
destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall
not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Notes shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President
and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Notes shall cease to be
such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for
all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note have been
so executed, they shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with
the Agreement.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 27
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Notes all Available Subdistrict Increment and/or Available Redevelopment Increment, as defined
in, and subject to the terms described in, the Notes. Available Subdistrict Increment and Available
Redevelopment Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes in
accordance with the terms of the form of Notes set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Notes are no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. The Authority irrevocably agrees
to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Subdistrict Increment and Available
Redevelopment Increment. Any Available Subdistrict Increment and Available Redevelopment
Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for the TIF
District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. (a) The Authority will issue no obligations secured by
Available Subdistrict Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the pledge to the Series
2008A Note and Series 2008C Note.
(b) As described in the form of the Notes, Available Redevelopment Increment is pledged to
the Series 2008C Note and the Series 2008D Note on a parity basis, subordinate to the pledge to the
Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in whole
or in part with Available Redevelopment Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge to the Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes, and to the Series 2008C and Series 2008D Notes.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Notes certified copies of all proceedings and records
of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required to show the
facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Notes as the same appear from the books and
records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies,
certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the
Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 7b) Page 28
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of the
Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 6, 2008
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 25, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt., and Sue Sanger.
Council members absent: Loran Paprocki.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Planning/ Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Assistant Finance Director (Mr. Swanson), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Larrea).
Guests: Robert Gallivan (Kerasotes Showplace Theatres), Peter Quill (Kerasotes Showplace
Theatres), Frank Dunbar (Union Land II LLC), and Mr. Weber (Volunteers of America).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Items on the agenda for the upcoming study session on
September 8, 2008 include Communication Towers, Dangerous Dog Ordinance and Real Estate
Recycling Additional TIF Request. The remaining items on the September 8, 2008 agenda will be
moved to a September 2, 2008 special study session.
Councilmember Basill asked that a review of the animal ordinance be added to one of the upcoming
study sessions. Mr. Harmening is going to instruct staff to review the ordinance and present a report
to the Council.
Councilmember Carver will not be in attendance for the September 2, 2008 study session.
2. West End Development/ Kerasotes Theatres Lounge Concept
Mr. Gavin and Mr. Quill of Kerasotes Theatres presented to Council the proposed theatre that is
part of the West End Development. They are hoping to get some direction from the Council on the
concept, liquor licensing codes and food sales.
Mr. Gavin explained to the Council that Kerasotes Theatres is interested in pursuing legislation that
would allow liquor sales in movie theatres. They are hoping that the Council will also consider
modifying the City’s on-sale liquor license rules.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
Mr. Gavin presented to the Council the building plans for the proposed theatre. They would like to
create a third floor lounge where alcoholic beverages would be served. Only people 21 and older
would be allowed into the lounge. There would be a check point to enter and leave the third level
lounge. No drinks or food will be allowed out of this area. In the lounge they would serve food
items such as appetizers, desserts, and snack items. The lounge would also have access to private
seating within two of the fourteen movie auditoriums. There will be about 77-78 seats available
with the theatre’s premium seating. They are hoping to give an adult experience.
Mayor Jacobs inquired as to whether there would have to be special legislation to allow them to serve
alcohol within the theatre. Mr. Locke responded that in order to serve alcohol the establishment is
required to serve a certain percentage of food to alcohol sales.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he liked the idea of the theatre and was wondering if Staff would be able to
draft up some language that would amend the current ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she also likes the idea of the theatre. However, she is concerned
with someone else calling themselves a theatre and taking advantage of amendments made to the
ordinance. She stated that when you begin to create exceptions you can fall down a slippery slop.
Mr. Harmening noted that you would be able to have some control because of the fact that you
must purchase a ticket in order to enter the premium lounge and you are not allowed to enter the
lounge without buying a ticket.
Councilmember Basill questioned if there was a way to avoid someone taking advantage of changes
to the liquor ordinance by requiring applicants to have a certain square foot screen and charge a
certain ticket price in order to be classified as a theatre.
Councilmember Sanger questioned how they would deal with people that get loud and drunk. Mr.
Garvin responded that this is not a club it is rather an adjunct to a movie experience. The wait staff
would not allow people to over drink and the price point of the drinks would also hinder people
from over drinking.
Councilmember Sanger asked that they please make sure that there is not a fee when you reserve the
tickets online. Mr. Garvin responded that they are in the process of trying to work something out
with this.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned if you would be allowed to stay in the lounge after your
movie was over. Mr. Garvin responded that this would be allowed, there will be a view and chairs to
lounge in.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
Mr. Garvin continued that he hopes to solve their issues within the jurisdictional body of the City
but they are prepared to go to the state legislature.
Mr. Harmening noted that as he understood it they would need changes to both state law and city
ordinances. Mr. Locke responded that someone can qualify for a liquor license one of two ways.
One is being a restaurant, the other is being a live theatre. It would be hard to characterize this
theatre as either of these.
Mr. Garvin noted that he would like to sit down with staff and work with the definitions and the
ordinance to see if there is anything that they could work out.
Mr. Harmening asked if this was something that that Council was interested in. If so he would have
Staff explore the issue further. The Council agreed and would also like to have feedback from the
City Attorney as well.
3. Hoigaard Village Adagio Senior Housing Proposal
Mr. Dunbar presented to the Council regarding the Hoigaard Village Adagio Senior Housing
Proposal. He proposed to the Council converting the “Adagio” condominium building, which is
within the Hoigaard Village project, to an age-restricted (55 & better) rental building.
Mr. Dunbar continued that they feel that the quickest way to get things moving is to take the
Adagio concept off the market. He proposes to do this by converting ownership of this building to
Volunteers of America, whose mission is to serve seniors. He feels that a non-profit owner would
serve the needs of the project. There is also TIF issues, but he did not have any more information
for the Council on that at this time.
Mr. Weber the president of Volunteers of America presented himself and his organization to the
Council. He noted that they hope to support seniors by providing them with a high quality of
independent living. He also noted that this project would not include assisted care units. He asked
the Council to allow his organization the opportunity to provide further information on their ideas
for the project.
Councilmember Basill noted that in the proposal they are changing the building from 58 to 98
units. He was concerned that this would increase the density of residents in an area that is already
plagued with bad roads. The City is aware that the intersection in the area is failing. He also noted
there are already several senior projects in this area and that this could potentially change the
demographics of the area. He questioned if the City was in agreement with making this a senior’s
area.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the City would be concentrating the area with senior projects
and it is important to look at this neighborhood in terms of building it for the next 50 years. He
also noted that this is a significant change from the original proposal for the site. He asked that
Volunteers of America provide to the Council a 990 report as well as other documents.
Councilmember Finkelstein also questioned how many changes can be made before they go too far
on the TIF application.
Mr. Locke noted that one of the things that staff has concluded is that if you look at the Elmwood
Plan, it will be years until they have light rail in this area. A mix of housing supports light rail and is
very important in this area. He also noted that this one project site was a very small piece of the
total potential Elmwood redevelopment.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that he would like to see some affordable housing for seniors
included as part of this project. He would like to see more public support of affordable housing.
Councilmember Basill would like to go back to the neighborhood and confirm that they are in
agreement with these changes. The neighborhood would also have to be informed if they are going
to offer subsidized housing for seniors.
Councilmember Sanger noted that she had several concerns with this proposal. She was concerned
that there would be a deviation from the housing policy and an emphasis on owner-occupied
housing. She is concerned with the addition of more rental units, which she feels is too many rental
units. She questioned if this was something that they could put a hold on and possibly revisit in two
years when the market is a little better. She also noted that the City agreed to the TIF based on a
different plan, so that if the developer can change the plan the City can as well.
Mayor Jacobs questioned if staff had the direction they needed to move forward. He also confirmed
that he believes that staff should continue the work on the project.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Basill both noted that they were not interested in exploring
subsidized housing in this area at this time.
Mr. Dunbar noted that the current projected rental rates would be $1,500-$1,700 per month, with
the largest unit being a two bedroom plus den, and smallest unit being a one bedroom plus den.
Mr. Dunbar noted that there would be no change to “Medley Row” and that it would stay an owner
occupied development.
Councilmember Omodt noted that at this time the City is not in need of additional affordable
housing. Councilmember Sanger agreed.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the staff could present a report to the Council confirming the
need for affordable housing in the City at this time. He would like to hear the staff say that the City
doesn’t need more affordable housing.
Councilmember Carver agreed that there is no need for further subsidized housing in this area. He
believes that doing nothing with the Hoigaard Village Adagio site is the worst thing that the City
could do. He noted that it is all about location and he feels that this is a great location for senior
housing with Target, Byerly’s and medical facilities so near by.
Councilmember Sanger questioned if a change in the project would affect the grants they have been
given to support redevelopment in this area. Staff indicated it would not.
It was the consensus of the Council to continue discussions.
2. 2009 Preliminary Budget
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed budget to the Council. He noted that staff has been able to
make adjustments to some items in the budget and they are looking for Council feedback and
direction on the 2009 Preliminary Budget and Levy.
Mr. DeJong informed the Council that for the objective at this time is to set a preliminary tax levy.
He noted that the budget does not need to be balanced at the current time. The charter requires
that it be balanced by December.
Mr. Swanson talked to Council regarding the levy limit implications. At the current time they have
removed police and fire salaries and benefits from the calculations, which gives the city more levy
capacity. The Finance calculations calculate the maximize levy limit. Mr. Swanson also noted that
the staff is taking a conservative approach to allow the City Council the most flexibility when the
final levy is adopted. The $21,912,419 levy represents a 6.27% increase over 2008.
Mr. DeJong noted that the City has a projected gap of $251,634.00, with expenditures exceeding
revenues. This takes into consideration the revenue generated within the levy limit and other
estimated revenue as compared to proposed expenditures. The City has not done any of the other
unwinding of LGA loss transfers other than the $50,000 reduction in the Police & Fire Pension
Levy. What are left in the budget are unwinding technology replacement costs and the paying for the
employee flex fund, which includes unemployment, training, and tuition reimbursement. The City
has paid these costs for the past four years through transfers from the general fund excess fund
balance.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
Mr. DeJong noted that the HRA Levy proceeds are being set aside to assist in paying for
infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. Councilmember Omodt inquired as to whether
they have looked into the increase that they are going to get and if this would mean that they could
build a bridge faster. Mr. Harmening noted that there are a lot of infrastructure improvements that
need to be completed. He also noted that this could have an affect on some projects. .
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned if they could be putting in a larger down payment.
Mr. Harmening noted that in the next weeks and months the staff would be digging in deeper.
Mayor Jacobs felt that the levy needed to be set at the highest level and then go down from there.
He also noted that this has been the Council’s process in the past.
Councilmember Sanger questioned if there would be time to go over specific budget items. She felt
that there are some projects that the Council has discussed and as far as she can tell there is no
budget to complete them. This included energy audits and a process to track vacant buildings. She
also noted that the city is currently charging residents for the removal of diseased trees on the
boulevard in front of their homes. She questioned if there would be funds available to change this
policy.
Mayor Jacobs would like to have the staff take a look at it. This is a policy that was changed in
2004.
Councilmember Carver feels that there is some shared responsibility between the City and the
resident in the removal of the tree.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like to look at federal lobbying. He would like to find out the
costs and the benefits. Mayor Jacobs feels that federal lobbying has been a waste of money.
Councilmember Basill said that he would take the word of Mayor Jacobs since he has not been there
himself.
Councilmember Carver asked for the opinion of Mr. Harmening regarding federal lobbying. He
questioned that if you did not have any federal lobbying then would the City stop seeing itself in
some of the places that it is right now. Mayor Jacobs would like to get more feedback from the staff
regarding federal lobbying.
It was the consensus of the Council to present the levy as staff had shown and continue budget
discussions later in the fall.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes August 25, 2008
3. Communications (Verbal)
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
1. July Monthly Financial Report
2. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update
3. Human Rights Commission Mid-Year Update
4. Police Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update
5. Amendments to St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
6. Solid Waste Program Update
7. Update on Energy Audit of City Facilities
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 08, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Sue Sanger.
Council members absent: C. Paul Carver
Staff present: City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Deputy Chief (Mr.
DiLorenzo), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Planning/ Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Attorney (Mr. Scott)
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
Guest: Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. During the study session of September 22, 2008, staff
would like to have a representative from Twin Cities and Western Railroad present to Council
existing and future rail operations, including a plan for the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation. Another
item of discussion staff would like to include in the agenda for September 22, 2008 is a discussion
on the SW Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement scoping meetings. Mr.
Harmening added that Councilmember Sanger sits on the committee and she has suggested a
position that the City may want to take it regards to this issue.
Mr. Harmening suggested adding an item to the agenda. Taste of India is changing ownership and
needs to renew its liquor license. They would like to be seen in front of the Council. It was agreed
by the Council that this would be added to one of the upcoming agendas.
Mayor Jacobs will be absent September 15, 2008 and September 22, 2008. Councilmember
Finkelstein will be absent October 13, 2008.
2. Communication Towers
Mr. Locke and Ms. McMonigal followed up with the Council on the items that were discussed at
the August 18, 2008 study session. They presented to the Council alternative height options based
on the current ordinance and two alternate options.
Councilmember Carver communicated via email that he preferred Alternate A.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Sanger questioned why it would matter if the location was zoned commercial,
industrial or office. She noted that the real issue is the residents that live near these towers. The
resident isn’t going to care what zone it is, just that it is next to their home.
Mr. Locke responded that he didn’t have a good answer for why the numbers are so different in the
different zones. This is simply the way it is in the ordinance. The taller towers would need to go
through a CUP process. The idea between the different zones is that commercial properties are
more integrated into the neighborhood and industrial areas are fairly large and further away from
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Basill agreed that the City has zoning for a purpose and he understand the
difference in industrial, commercial and office. He thinks that it makes sense to look at them
independently.
Councilmember Paprocki stated that the multi-family being permitted at 112’ seemed too high to
him. He is in agreement with the CUP process taking place. He would like to have most issues
with height go through a CUP process because he thought that this process would be able to filter
the different requests.
Councilmember Finkelstein also agrees with having a CUP process. He questioned why the height
would be higher in an industrial than office, etc. He questioned if the towers would be placed on
top of buildings. Mr. Locke responded that the difference in heights between office and industrial
was because of what is in the ordinance now. He would like to have the height requirement in office
mirror that in industrial. This is what the staff has done in Alternate B.
Councilmember Sanger noted that she would like to leave the heights as they are. She questioned
why change the heights. Councilmember Paprocki added that if the tower doesn’t harm someone
else and someone wants to do it, why stop them. He doesn’t want to restrict someone if he doesn’t
have to.
Councilmember Sanger noted that the Council should remember the reaction of the community to
the solar tower. She doesn’t want to open that kind of a debate. She questioned what is gained by
having a tower. Councilmember Paprocki added that the Council should withhold judgment until
it is necessary.
Councilmember Omodt noted that he felt that it seemed like the Council had different
interpretations of the same item. He noted that he is not afraid of the height allowed as long as
there is a CUP. He is in agreement with the CUP process. He noted that technology is always
changing and in ten years there could be something bigger and better. and towers would not even be
an issue. Councilmember Finkelstein added that this is why you need the CUP process.
Councilmember Paprocki questioned if they need a variance if they go above the CUP. Mr. Locke
responded that if you are going to have a relatively high tower then you need to go through a CUP
process, and above the limit would require a variance.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Basill questioned Mr. Locke what the staff would like to see for the Office zone.
Mr. Locke responded that any height between the 360’ (Current and Alternate A) and 200’
(Alternate B) for the office zone would work. Ms. McMonigal added that an antenna on office
buildings is more likely to be desired.
Councilmember Finkelstein added that they had a few restrictions on communication towers and no
restrictions on lighting. Mr. Omodt noted that just because the tower got taller doesn’t mean that it
would be more visible. He thought that the lights would be pointing up so you wouldn’t be able to
see them from the ground.
Councilmember Basill noted that it seemed that the Council was in agreement that there was a need
for a CUP process. The issue that needs to be worked out is if you want to have a height limit and if
yes do they need to change the wording and what would the height limit be.
Councilmember Sanger noted that she absolutely thought that there needed to be a height limit and
language added to prohibit people from applying for a variance. Mr. Scott noted that he didn’t
think that the City could prohibit someone from applying for a variance. He felt that there had to
be another way to restrict this. He is going to look into it further.
Mr. Harmening noted that he has heard 50% requirements. He questioned if they still want to
retain that. He also noted that under Alternate A and B they would not refer to the 50%.
Councilmember Basill questioned how “Mixed Use” falls into this. Mr. Locke responded that they
don’t allow towers in mixed use areas and there is very little mixed use property in the City.
Councilmember Basill noted that the direction staff should look at is what height do they want for
each category and that is what the Council needs to answer. He noted that he does not like
Alternate A and he is also curious about the logic behind the numbers for the Commercial zone.
He thinks that the Industrial zone should be higher because that it where the towers belong. He
likes the height for the Industrial zone under Alternate B. He would also like to see the Office zone
changed to something that makes sense.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that he would not like to have hard caps on the height that a tower
could be. He also felt that 112’ being permitted under Multi-family zone seemed high. He would
like to take it down to 75’ as the permitted height without going through a CUP process. He sees
anything over this as needing a CUP.
Mr. Harmening questioned whether or not the Council wanted to have a cap on the numbers.
Councilmember Basill, Councilmember Omodt and Councilmember Carver were all leaning
towards Alternate A.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Mayor Jacobs asked if the Council would like caps on the height. He noted that he would like to
have a fair amount of discretion and would like it to be flexible. He also said that he doesn’t know
much about radio towers and he is fine with absolute caps as long as the staff is fine with it. He
doesn’t know how they come to these numbers so he is going to rely on staff to say where it is the
towers need to go.
Mr. Locke noted that the easiest zones to deal with are Single family and Multi-family. The reason
for setting limits is to make it easier for people. If they understand at least in a broad sense what the
limits are. If it was a matter of 5 feet it would be possible to give someone a variance.
Councilmember Sanger noted that if they don’t set a height limit they might turn St. Louis Park
into a destination to put towers in. Councilmember Omodt noted that he would like people to
know the rules before they get to the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like to go with Alternate A but would like to change the height
permitted for Multi-family from 112’ to 75’. He would like height requirements in the Office and
Industrial zones to be permitted at 200’ and CUP at 400’.
Councilmember Sanger objected to these numbers. She would like the staff to research further once
they have parameters. She would like to include a pumped up standard relating to aesthetics. She
would also like to look into the set back for the Residential zones. Today the setback requirement is
twice the height of the tower.
Mr. Locke asked that if the Council would be okay with the staff looking into the collapse and set
back requirements. He thought that they may remain the same and they may need to be tweaked.
He would like to bring back a proposed ordinance with more details.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the staff felt they had enough feedback to move forward.
Mr. Locke asked if the Council would like staff to bring an ordinance back for a first reading.
Council noted that they would like the ordinance back for a first reading.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that they bring back mathematical examples because the
collapse radius is not always one and a half times the height of the tower.
3. Proposed Ordinance- Dangerous Dogs
Mr. Harmening presented to the Council regarding the changes made to the ordinance for
dangerous dogs. At the last discussion it was suggested to change the ordinance to dangerous dog
and potential dangerous dog. He would like to get feedback from the Council on requiring dogs to
be on the leash or allowing them to be off of the leash. He provided examples of the language used
in other cities.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Mayor Jacobs noted that he believed that dogs always need to be on a leash. He didn’t feel that the
potential harm was worth the disadvantage of putting a dog on a leash. Councilmember Finkelstein,
Councilmember Paprocki and Councilmember Omodt agreed.
Councilmember Sanger noted that the proposed language near section 484 in theory makes sense to
her, but in the real world it would be a lot easier to have a dog on a leash.
Mr. Harmening noted that the ordinance made exceptions for service dogs. Councilmember Sanger
questioned why any owner would be exempt from cleaning up after their dogs. Councilmember
Sanger wanted to bring up another dog issue. She questioned why they wouldn’t require that all
dogs have microchips.
Police Chief Luse stated that microchips are required if the dog is found to be a danger. In most
cases the chip wouldn’t make a difference. The dogs that don’t get picked up generally are dogs that
people don’t want. He also noted that the microchip will be explored with this new ordinance.
Mr. Harmening stated that the ordinance would be brought back to Council for a first reading.
4. Vision Strategic Directions Update -- Evaluating and Investigating Additional
North/South Transportation Options
Mr. Brink and Mr. Rardin presented a report to Council regarding the evaluating and investigating
of North- South transportation options. The traffic study was primarily related to Highway 100,
but expanded upon nearby traffic corridors as well.
Mr. Rardin noted that in the current plan they are planning on keeping the Highway 100 frontage
road. He continued that if they do not have a frontage road they will be dealing with traffic further
into the neighborhoods.
Mr. Brink continued that the City contracted with Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to evaluate
what would happen if they went with certain future construction options, such as breakdowns,
improvements and increased traffic. They found that the north/south connections would lighten
traffic on Minnetonka Boulevard.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the last chart that was given to the Council was hard to
understand. Mr. Rardin responded that the chart was a look at the City over the next 20 years.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that on the Westside of Highway 100 it is difficult to travel in a
north/south direction. Councilmember Basill would eventually like a copy of the numbers in the
report. He stated that he is interested in opening up some north/south connections to the heart of
the city.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Paprocki would like to look at where people live in relation to the proposed plans.
He commented that if the City was to widen or improve Louisiana Avenue, they may be knocking
down people’s homes.
Councilmember Sanger questioned what it was the staff wanted to get from Council at this meeting.
Mr. Harmening responded that they would like to know if Council would like staff to continue
exploring possible north/south routes.
Councilmember Sanger commented that she does think that the City has a transportation problem.
She commented on the Dakota plan and thought that it looked expensive but also looks like the
most important. She questioned if they were going to extend the west end since they are putting so
much money into it and people have no way to get there. She felt a couple of the ideas were non-
starters such as extending Ottawa Avenue. She would like to keep traffic out of residential
neighborhoods. Also, if 28th Street were extended, it would not relieve anything.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that if he had to pick a number one plan it would be the Dakota
plan over the tracks. He felt that it would take a lot of pressure off of Louisiana Avenue.
Mr. Rardin felt that staff had not given the Council enough information in order to make an
informed decision. He noted that whatever decision is made, it is going to have long term
ramifications. It is important to look into the future and understand what the different plans would
do to the City’s traffic. What staff would like to do is to put the statistics on a map and see what
happens with these different options. He would like to color code the maps in regards to the
volumes of the traffic, if it gets better or if it gets worse. He would like Council to be able to look at
the long term crafting of the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned how long it would be until Toledo properties would know
the status on their homes. Mr. Rardin answered that he did not know.
Councilmember Sanger commented that the west end question is one that can not wait. The City is
putting millions in and people can’t get there.
Councilmember Omodt questioned if the model took into account light rail going east/west. Mr.
Rardin said that they had but that it will not have a large effect because there are not a lot of park
and ride lots.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that he is looking for where the City would get the biggest bang for
their buck. He felt that they should do a study to try and narrow down the options so the Council
can give staff more direction.
Mayor Jacobs commented that the route that came to his mind was Texas.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will narrow down the plans but with more data, so if Council does
or doesn’t want to study a certain area, they will understand the ripple effects.
Councilmember Sanger asked if staff would look at more bike and pedestrian routes. She felt the
City needs to have more connections. Staff responded that the sidewalk and trail portion of the
Comprehensive Plan would be coming to Council soon for review and further comment.
Mayor Jacobs stated that they would look at this again in the next month or two.
5. Highway 7 Corporate Center Project- Request for Additional TIF Assistance
Mr. Hyde from Real Estate Recycling presented himself to the Council and requested up to
$280,000 in additional tax increment assistance to finance greater than anticipated environmental,
legal, and redevelopment costs associated with Highway 7 Corporate Center project. Mr. Hyde
stated they had a lot more relocation costs than they thought that they would have. The real
number for everything is $230,000-$250,000. It is a cushion to have $280,000; in case the towing
company is owed more.
Councilmember Sanger questioned why relocation costs are not predictable. Mr. Hyde responded
that they sit down with a relocation consultant and they say you pay X per business and then they
budget the statutory amount. The businesses that created issues with the relocation budget were the
photography studio and All Hours Towing.
Councilmember Finkelstein had several concerns. He did not feel that it was the City’s
responsibility to bail out a developer. He did not feel that the City should be responsible for the
$46,000 in legal fees listed. He does not see supporting another $280,000 in TIF. He does not want
developers to think that the City will just take care of issues that arise. He felt that the builder has
done a great job and that the site will be a success, but he also feels that the City has done its job.
Councilmember Basill commented that you have to remember the environmental cleanup at this
site. He does not feel many people would have taken on this task. It was one nasty site. He would
like to pay back all the relocation costs for All Hours Towing.
Councilmember Omodt noted that the City asks the developers to be fortune tellers. He wants to
hold people accountable, but agrees with Councilmember Basill that you can’t punish the developer
for something that they couldn’t foresee. He does not want to scare away future developers.
Councilmember Sanger understands why you couldn’t predict the environmental costs. She does
not agree with the legal fees. She feels that the most difficult to decide on is the relocation fees. She
is fine with paying a portion of the relocation fees. She is willing to go up to the portion that the TIF
district could support. Councilmember Basill questioned how much this would be. Mr. Hunt
responded it would be approximately $115,000.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Paprocki felt that they completed what they wanted with this project. He doesn’t
feel the City has the obligation to make sure that the project stays within the budget. He feels that
the City should help with the $72,000 in environmental costs. He does not want to agree to
relocation costs especially when they are still in negotiations.
Mr. Hunt commented that the relocation costs are the hardest to estimate as there invariably are
unknowns. The original budget numbers were recommended by the EDA’s relocation consultant.
Mr. Locke continued that relocation is governed by federal regulations. It is a very complicated area
and it is hard to know what you are going to be faced with. It is hard to project because these are
businesses that did not want to move. It is hard to estimate the precise cost to relocate each
business. It is also hard to calculate how much it is going to cost to relocate a towing business and
impound lot. First off, it was hard to find somewhere for them to go. Secondly, they had to move
twice. He feels the City had been in a partnership with Real Estate Recycling and that Real Estate
Recycling has taken the majority of the hit. He wants other businesses to know that they can work
with the City and that they don’t have to foresee every worse case scenario.
Councilmember Basill commented that from what he hears the relocation consultant works for the
developer, the city, and the company. The consultant works for the best interest of all parties.
Councilmember Paprocki doesn’t want contractors to think that the City is going to sign a check
each time they go over budget. He feels that there is some give and take in this.
Mr. Hyde commented that the lion’s share of the legal bills were for the dealing with Methodist
Hospital. None of it was for personal legal bills. He continued that if they could have applied for
more grants they would have. It was really hard to accurately estimate these costs and the biggest
problem was the relocation.
Councilmember Basill stated that he would feel differently if it was a development without all of this
contamination. He stated that with a site this complicated he couldn’t see not supporting them.
Councilmember Omodt felt that Real Estate Recycling is an extension of the City’s staff in terms of
redeveloping property. Councilmember Sanger responded that Real Estate Recycling is not a part of
City staff. She asked why they wouldn’t want to share the burdens and why the City should take on
all of the risks. She said to pay out even one dime more then what the City would get in the TIF, she
didn’t know how you can do that. Mr. Locke responded that what they are saying is that the City
would only pay to the extent the tax increment is there. The City would not pay more than the TIF
district could generate. He felt that it is was reasonable to reimburse Real Estate Recycling for some
of the costs.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he believes that there are policy issues. He does not feel Mr.
Hyde is an extension of staff and the City doesn’t have the same responsibility and liability.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Basill responded that the developer is looking for up to $280,000 in additional TIF,
which they may not get if it is not there by the end of the TIF district. If the building appreciates
and the tax base is there, they will be reimbursed for their additional costs.
Mr. Harmening proposed that they make a compromise to pay the relocation and environmental
fees, but not the legal fees.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the TIF would go from 21 to 26 years under this
compromise. Councilmember Sanger responded that it is the City policy to try and keep the term of
the TIF district under 20 years. Councilmember Basill commented that he would agree with this
98% of the time but not on projects with this much contamination. He remembered that Real
Estate Recycling agreed to take a profit cut of about 1 million dollars. He felt that what Mr.
Harmening suggested was fair.
Mayor Jacobs questioned what happens if the City says no. Mr. Hyde responded nothing because
they have already spent the money.
Councilmember Omodt commented that the City is putting unreasonable demands on developers.
He felt that it is telling developers not to deal with the City again. The City could have left the
towing lot there but the City wanted it moved so the project could move forward. He felt that the
City needed to be reasonable or they weren’t going to see redevelopment in the future.
Councilmember Basill questioned if you have $280,000 after TIF, how much goes to the City? Mr.
Locke responded that if the TIF district ended, the City would get about a third. Councilmember
Basill asked what the City would really be losing if Mr. Hyde can pay it by the end of the term. Mr.
Locke responded that if they went with Mr. Harmening’s proposal it would be about $70,000.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the issue is the precedence that the City is setting and what
the next developer is going to do. Mr. Harmening responded that one point of clarification is that
the City does turn down people that come in and want more money.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned what if the City just paid the environmental fees. Mr.
Harmening responded that this would be about $70,000. Mr. Locke commented that in most
situations most developers won’t take on the relocation fees.
Mayor Jacobs commented that he felt the Council was split. He would like to look at paying the
developer some of the money. The relocation cost bothered him. He felt that they needed
Councilmember Carver to be involved in this discussion. He felt that the Council should revisit the
issue.
Councilmember Basill commented that it looked like they were between $72,000 and $234,000.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he didn’t want to pay anything at all but if the Council could
make a deal tonight he would agree to $72,000.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Paprocki stated that he would go for $72,000.
Councilmember Sanger would support the $72,000. She also stated that she would be fine with
going a little over $72,000.
Councilmember Omodt would support letting the TIF district run out. He stated that he would
like the City to be reasonable with partners. He asked that other Councilmembers to remember that
the Police Chief came to the Council and stated that he wanted the developer to cooperate with the
towing company.
Councilmember Basill stated that he doesn’t think $72,000 passes the fairness test. He understands
the concerns on the legal fess.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would be fine with the $72,000, but he could be talked into a little
more. He didn’t feel they were going to get much further tonight.
Councilmember Paprocki felt that they had a split decision and was fine with seeing what
Councilmember Carver’s take is on this issue.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he was fine with paying half of the relocation costs. He stated that this was
because relocation is not an exact science and if you are a partner you are a 50/50 partner and he
would like to encourage people to come back to the City for development.
Councilmember Basill noted that if they did half the relocation fees and the environmental fees it
would total $153,000.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the TIF district doesn’t generate more then $115,000.
Councilmember Sanger suggested going with $115,000. She stated that if that is all that the district
would allow then she is okay with that.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the Council would then be extending the TIF to 26
years. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned Mr. Hyde if he would be okay with $115,000. Mr.
Hyde responded that he would be fine with $115,000 if he did not have to pay more relocation
costs. He is not okay with it if he has to write more checks to the towing company.
Councilmember Basill would like to come to an amount that would make Mr. Hyde feel okay.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that at $115,000 he was over his limit.
Mayor Jacobs stated it appeared that there was general support for providing $115,000.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 11
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Councilmember Sanger questioned when this would be on the agenda for approval. Mr. Harmening
stated that this issue would likely be on the agenda in October.
6. Japs Olson Printing Expansion
Mr. Locke and Mr. Hunt presented to the Council regarding Japs Olson’s expansion plans and
possible City actions to make the expansion possible. The company is interested in expanding about
150,000-160,000 square feet into its parking lot on the west side of the building. Most of the 9+
acres that they are hoping to acquire from Kunz Oil Company for the expansion is in Hopkins, not
St. Louis Park, which means Japs Olson will need Hopkins’ approval as well to proceed with the
expansion. Mr. Harmening questioned if from a policy perspective Council wished for staff to
continue working on the Japs Olson expansion.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that he would like to see some sort of an option where if the City
stopped using it as a parking lot that they can take it back. He knows that Hopkins would be giving
up some development options, but the City needs to look into the future.
Councilmember Sanger did not agree that Hopkins should be entitled to 2/3rds of the property
taxes. She thinks that staff should continue to work with Japs Olson. Mr. Harmening commented
that Hopkins has argued that without the parking lot expansion, the project would not happen.
Councilmember Paprocki asked that staff get an estimate of how much 2/3rds of the property taxes
would be for Hopkins. Mr. Locke responded that it would be around $400 a square foot. It would
be about half a million a year in property taxes. Hopkins would get the tax capacity, which would
be about $120,000 this tax year.
Councilmember Basill doesn’t want to penalize this business just because they are on the border
between the cities. He asked how one could change the boundary. Mr. Locke answered that the
two cities have to agree to a change in the borders.
Mr. Harmening noted that he thought that it sounded like Council would like to see more on Japs
Olson’s expansion regarding the property tax share and if it seems profitable.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that he felt that staff was doing a great job.
7. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated that the commission status issues did not need to go the Council.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 12
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 8, 2008
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
1. Planning Commission Mid-Year Update
2. Board of Zoning Appeals Mid-Year Update
3. I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Sue Sanger, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein,
and Paul Omodt.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacob and Loran Paprocki.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
Guests: Taste of India Representatives
2. Public Hearing
2a. Motion to approve an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License to Rasoi,
Inc. dba Taste of India, located at 5617 Wayzata Boulevard for the license term
through March 1, 2009.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened and closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. No speakers were
present to address this item.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License to Rasoi, Inc. dba Taste of India, located at
5617 Wayzata Boulevard for the license term through March 1, 2009.
The motion passed 5-0.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Sue Sanger, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein,
Paul Omodt and Loran Paprocki.
Council members absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Director
of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Mark Oestrich (Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager).and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
Guests: Mark Wegner (President, Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company), Bob Suko (General
Manager of Operations, Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company) and Jim Brimeyer.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning -- October 6, October 13 and October 14,
2008
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Finkelstein will be absent but would like to participate via teleconference for the
study session of October 13, 2008.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that at an upcoming study session he would like to discuss land
sales money. Mr. Harmening responded that this item will be on the agenda sometime in October
or November 2008.
Mr. Harmening noted that the Surface Water Management Plan Update scheduled for discussion
during the October 13, 2008 study session may be able to be put into a report. He is looking into
this.
Mr. Harmening requested a special study session for Tuesday, October 14, 2008 in order to discuss
financing plans for upcoming significant capital projects
It was the consensus of the Council to not have a special study session on October 14 and requested
that the City Manager fit in the discussion on capital project funding as part of regular study sessions
by rescheduling other items.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
2. Twin Cities & Western Railroad Officials – Update to Council
Mr. Wegner from Twin Cities Western Railroad (TCW) presented to the Council regarding the
operation plans for their short-line railroad. He updated the Council on the Glencoe Railroad
Switchyard in regards the affects on St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Omodt questioned what assurance they would have that railcars would no longer be
sorted in St. Louis Park if they contributed money to have it moved. Mr. Wegner responded that
they did not have a want or a need to sort within the City. It is inefficient and is only done now
because it is necessary but they would not be able to guarantee that they would never need to sort in
the City again.
Councilmember Omodt questioned what they thought that the project would cost. Mr. Harmening
responded that they are pricing the project at about $3 million dollars.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what the annual revenues of TCW were. Mr. Wagner answered
that they are privately owned and stated that it would take them a significant amount of time to pay
for this project alone. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what they would do if they couldn’t get the
money from Washington. Mr. Wegner responded that they would continue to operate the way that
they currently are.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they continued to operate the way they currently are what they
foresee in their growth of operations. Mr. Wegner responded that they anticipate two trains a day
that they would have to sort. They will have to change their hours of operation when LRT comes.
There will be more sorting.
Councilmember Paprocki asked if the funding was approved if TCW would agree that those rails
used for sorting would no longer be needed. Mr. Wegner stated that he couldn’t say much because
they don’t own the rails. Mr. Suko stated that a $3million yard is not going to accommodate all of
the cars and they would still likely have to use those rails in some way.
Councilmember Paprocki questioned what TCW would do if St. Louis Park told them they would
only commit to funding if TCW agreed to no longer storing cars in St. Louis Park and no longer
switching and sorting cars in St. Louis Park. Mr. Wegner responded that they would walk away
from the project and continue operations as they are. Councilmember Paprocki questioned what
they would do if they were allowed to store cars but not sort cars. Mr. Wegner responded that they
couldn’t agree to never having cars switched and sorted in St. Louis Park but they could consider no
more then 5% sorting in a given year.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff is interested in the Council’s view of how to move forward on this
topic.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
Councilmember Carver noted that as long as the tracks are on the ground someone else is going to
want to make use of them. He feels that it would solve the problem for now, but they need to look
at how beneficial it would be in the long run.
Councilmember Basill said what they need to look at is that this is an opportunity to get rid of the
sorting of rail cars. He noted that the City is never going to get rid of the storage of cars in St. Louis
Park.
Councilmember Paprocki stated that the real problem is sorting, the loud noise and the clanging of
the cars.
Mr. Harmening stated that what he was hearing from this discussion is that there is not a likelihood
of discontinuing the storage of cars in St. Louis Park but that it may be possible to create a deal to
allow TCW to do sorting on a limit basis within the City with a limit of 5% per year. Council
indicated they would want to have an agreement with TCW that provided an understanding what
the limits would be as part of the Glencoe project
2. Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update
Ms. McMonigal presented to the Council regarding the Southwest Transit Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS scoping meetings will be held in October. It is the City’s
chance to bring forth issues for study.
Councilmember Sanger feels that the question facing the Council is what issues associated with the
Southwest Transit need to be addressed environmentally. This includes traffic that is crossing
streets, noise, the possibility of traffic being routed north and trains traveling directly behind the
high school, as well as other issues.
Councilmember Sanger and Mr. Brimeyer discussed the memo that was sent to the Police Advisory
Committee (PAC). They would like the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) to
consider both light and heavy rail in the Kenilworth corridors, while moving or elevating the bike
trail. They identified the issues of noise; the “Y” in the tracks; train sorting noise; traffic crossings,
congestion that will occur with cars, rail and the ped/bike trail; rail near the Senior High; and grade
separating the rail, trail and roadways.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like to know how close they are to getting light rail in the City.
Mr. Brimeyer responded that St. Louis Park is next in line.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Council now has an opportunity to add language to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
Councilmember Sanger has spoken to someone from the County regarding the potential bottleneck
issue on the rail track and they have suggested hiring a consultant to survey the area.
Councilmember Sanger raised the question to the Council if there was anything that should be
added to the DEIS.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that in the report they mentioned a whistle quiet zone.
Councilmember Basill noted that if they want to have a bike and light rail line they would likely
have to provide some sort of an alternative north/south connection.
Councilmember Sanger added that there is one environmental issue that was not included in the
DEIS, which is the issue of parking for the light rail. She questioned where people taking the light
rail are going to park their vehicles and the environmental impact this could have. She noted that it
is an environmental issue for the neighborhoods.
The Council asked staff to prepare a written statement to submit for the scoping process and asked
City Manager Harmening to present at the October 14 scoping meeting.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the staff would like to do two sessions of visioning with a representative
group of Council, Planning Commission, neighbors and business owners regarding this issue. She
asked for permission from the Council to move forward with these meetings.
3. Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Working in areas such
as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc.; encourage (and provide
incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED), creation of open spaces,
environmental innovations, etc.
Mr. Hoffman presented to the Council regarding the rehab loan program, development projects,
permits, ideas to encourage green project design, creation of open spaces, and environmental
innovations. Staff had several recommendations as far as how to move forward with these projects
and was looking for feedback from the Council.
Councilmember Paprocki is not in agreement with requiring green roofs. He feels that there are
other “bread and butter” type items, such as increasing insulation that would better serve the City
and its residents.
Councilmember Omodt commented that it is possible that the City s going to be dealing with
sustainability issues like people raising chickens and having “Victory Gardens.” He doesn’t want to
overlook the possibility of addressing residents raising small livestock. He noted that the movement
toward sustainability is a trend and is coming.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that you have to look at the repercussions even with items such as
composting.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
Councilmember Sanger has a problem that there is not a goal for open space. She asked if there is an
area that they are still looking at for the open space.
Ms. Larsen noted that the West End project incorporates open space and Mr. Harmening noted that
Excelsior & Grand is evidence of planning that includes open space.
Mr. Hoffman answered that they were looking at how it would fit into future rezoning but they have
not looked at a specific area. Councilmember Sanger asked that staff would further look into the
prospect of open space. Ms. Larsen answered that it could be included in the GreenStar Initiative.
Councilmember Sanger noted that the City should look into upcoming projects where they may be
able to introduce a “green” aspect. She noted that the City should be the leader in implementing
green building/design. That the city should “walk the walk” and have green buildings if we expect
others to.
Mr. Harmening noted that it may be a possible to use Geo-Thermal in the new fire stations. He
noted that this would mean a greater cost in the front end.
Ms. Larsen noted that the City’s green remodeling pilot program provides models to residents as to
how they can make “green” changes and what type of a saving they would see. They will be trying
different “green alternatives” in some St. Louis Park homes in order to get real data and numbers. It
will give residents information as far as how cost effective making these changes would be.
Mr. Hoffman noted that most homes are not insulated to the degree that they could be or are using
high efficiency furnaces. There is a lot of potential for energy savings with these types of.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that items like insulation really have a pay off and will continue to
pay off.
It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with the recommendations presented by staff.
4. Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Educating staff and the
public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices
Mr. Zwilling presented to the Council regarding how they are working on educating the staff and
the public on environmental consciousness and stewardship. The staff has stepped up Park
Perspective by highlighting different green programs. The staff has also recommended utilizing
strategic marketing to get people to visit the Westwood Hills Nature Center. Mr. Zwilling stated
that he felt that there is a real need to educate the community in this area and support the nature
center.
Mr. Zwilling asked the Council for feedback if they are in support of the marketing and if they feel
that it is a worthwhile endeavor.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
Councilmember Carver stated that he agrees 100% with the plan they have presented. He noted
that he would like the opportunity to spread out the marketing throughout the community.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that he feels that the City is missing out on a huge demographic.
He doesn’t want to market this to the people who already know about it. He wants to pitch it to
people who don’t know about it. He feels it would be worthwhile to target the marketing at kids
because parents will accompany their children. Councilmember Finkelstein noted that there is a
large percentage of residents do not have children.
Councilmember Carver felt that it was an opportune time to talk to the schools. The Westwood
Hill Nature Center could be a good introduction to science by using interactive learning.
It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with the plan presented by staff.
5. City Manager’s 2008 Performance Evaluation
Councilmember Sanger presented the staff report regarding how best to evaluate the City Manager’s
performance.
It was the consensus of the Council to further explore using the 360 Program to evaluate the City
Manager’s performance.
6. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated that Mr. Hoffman will be holding a meeting regarding rental licensing for
townhomes and condominiums.
The Cohen brothers will be filming in the City from November 2 – 6, 2008 and are looking for a
place to erect a tent. Carpenter Park is currently an option.
On October 7, 2008 there will be a Historical Preservative Commission meeting held.
Mr. Harmening noted that Suburban Plumbing Supply was required by contract to take down their
billboard by 2008. They have now resigned their lease with Clear Chanel.
Councilmember Sanger noted that on October 16, 2008 the Rotary is holding a dinner.
Councilmember Sanger has tickets for sale and will also be collecting donation items for an auction.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 3d) Page 7
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes September 22, 2008
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update
8. August 2008 Monthly Financial Report
9. Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
City Council 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:
Appointing Student Election Judges and Additional Regular Election Judges for the 2008 General
Election.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing student election judges and additional regular election judges
needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 4, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None
BACKGROUND:
On August 4th, Council adopted Resolution No. 08-096 appointing judges for the Primary and
General Elections of 2008. Since that time, our office has worked with the staff of St. Louis Park
and Benilde/St. Margaret’s High Schools to recruit and train student judges. This resolution
appoints 86 of those students to serve on November 4th. In addition to the students, several new
adult judges have been recruited to work at the polls on Election Day, and those names are also
being presented for approval with this resolution.
This brings the total number of election judges serving to over 375 for the General Election. In an
effort to accommodate judges unable to work the entire 15-18 hour day, many of our judges will be
working in half day shifts. City Clerk staff is required to administer a minimum of 2.5 hours of
training to each person serving as an election judge and an additional 1 hour of training for those
serving as Chair and Co-Chair Judges.
We are expecting a record voter turnout and every effort is being made to provide for adequate
crowd control. The number of voters already registered in St. Louis Park is well over 28,000 and we
are expecting many more to register to vote at the polls on Election Day.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Election expenses for judges are included in the adopted 2008 budget. Election judge hourly pay is
as follows: $8.00 student judges, $8.25 regular judges, $9.25 co-chair judges and $9.75 chair judges.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community through recruitment and
training of community members to serve as Student Election Judges and Regular Election Judges.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manger/HR Director
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Appointing Student Trainee Judges and Additional Election Judges for the 2008 General Election
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_______
RESOLUTION APPOINTING STUDENT ELECTION JUDGES
AND ADDITIONAL REGULAR ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE
GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008
WHEREAS, The 2008 General Election is to be held on November 4, 2008 and the City
must act to appoint judges of the election by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 08-096 was adopted on August 4, 2008; and
WHEREAS, student judges have been recruited as well as additional judges need to staff the
polls on Election Day:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in addition to the persons appointed by
Resolution 08-096, the following persons have agreed to serve as Student Trainee Election Judges.
First Name Last Name
Sari Abelson
Winters Ashley
Colleen Bell
Caroline Bergh
Desiree' Brown
Katelyn Broz
Katie Busch
Tucker Carlson
Sheley China
Andrew Christenson
Ashley Cleveland
Shannon Cunnien
Michael Dahl
Kelsey Daley
Rebecca Davis
Samantha Delke
Joey Dryer
Tricia Eagan
Nicole Foley
Liza Forberg
Megan Forcier
Natalie Guggenberger
Jasmine Harris
Sam Hay
Elizabeth Hertzenberg
Mike Hoff
Isabelle Hogan
Terrel Jackson
Michael Jacobs
Heidi Johnson
First Name Last Name
Theresa Jones
Bridget Kelly
Johanna Knaeble
Sarah Koch
Jill Kraemer
Alex Kupka
Rachel Lahl
Wes Langill
Jessica Laucher
Natalie Lavong
Nathalie Lawyer
Mikialia Lewis
KT Lindemann
Ingrid Link
Tiffany Little
Sarah Loeschke
Ian Lutes
Kelson MacKenzie
Lukeeshia Macon
Jasmine McFarlane
Emma Foehinger Merchant
Hannah Miller
Elle Mohs
Clare Morin
Melanie Mustful
Matt Myers
Yusef NcNulty
Trent Nwogwugwu
Ben Polach
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Appointing Student Trainee Judges and Additional Election Judges for the 2008 General Election
Student Judges Continued
First Name Last Name
Erica Qualheim
Molly Radke
Katie Rawls
Stephanie Ritchie
Nick Rochon
Ali Roth
Charlie Rygh-Wallin
Ansel Santosa
John Savoie
Jane Schewe
Kaylah Schlegel
Jenna Schwartz
Justin Segal
Michael Shibowski
Tasha Silver
Anna Skov
Terra Smith
First Name Last Name
Sydney Spelz
Cassandra Steen
Kaitlyn Steffenhagen
Sydnee Stratman
Michelle Sturlaugson
Taylor Sullivan
Catherine Tarsney
Anne Theissen
Kali Thompson
Gerardo Vertin
Madee Weisner
Brian Wells
Julia Westley
Daniel White
Van Wifat
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the following persons are hereby appointed as
additional regular election judges.
Precinct First Name Last Name
1 Catherine Courtney
1 Lynne Fischer
2 Lorne Brunner
2 Jane Davenport
2 Sara Mutchler
2 Edwin Worrell
3 Shirley Karsten
3 Pamm Oliveira
3 Elizabeth Rung
3 Katie Zika
4 Chris Fadden
4 Edward Kasan
4 Ann Olson
4 Roger Ruth
5 Helen Lipets
5 Barb Osfar
6 Kathy Briesemeister
6 Frank Landis
7 Robert Garrison
7 Mike Littell
8 Tracy O'Kane
9 Brenda Benda
9 John Paul Gille
9 Carolyn Kaehr
Precinct First Name Last Name
9 Rebecca Pearson
9 Elmo Plumhoff
9 Hemry Solmer
10 Cecile Javinsky
10 Marlene Touchberry
10 Jennifer Witthuhn
11 Harry Kelley
11 Nancy Lapakko
11 Martin Peyer
12 Jorge Garcia
12 Tim Gormley
13 Laurie Belleau
13 Andrea Michael
14 Dawn Brunn
14 Christine Johnson
14 Diana Schug
14 Julianne Sixel
15 Ben Leadholm
16 Ava Marske
16 Kathy McKay
16 Beth Peyer
17 Sheila Hanley
17 John White
17 Stephen Koepcke
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Appointing Student Trainee Judges and Additional Election Judges for the 2008 General Election
Precinct First Name Last Name
ALT Cheryl Carlson
ALT Lucille Epstein
ALT Rochelle Lorenz
ALT John Madson
ALT Tom Marolt
Precinct First Name Last Name
ALT Patricia Monson
ALT David Rotert
ALT Helen Stimson
ALT Gus Virkus
ALT Dohn Fadden
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
City Council 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:
City Attorney Fee Increase.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase city attorney
services rates by 3.5% starting January 1, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to increase the rates paid for city attorney services in 2009 by 3.5%?
BACKGROUND:
The attorneys of Campbell Knutson have served the City since 1996. The firm has requested a
3.5% rate increase for 2009 legal services. If approved, the attorney hourly rates would increase
from $140/hour to $145/hour and law clerk/paralegal rates would increase from $70/hour to
$72.50/hour for law clerks/paralegals. No other increases were requested. Listed below is a
summary of rates over the past several years:
Year
Attorney
Law Clerks/
Paralegals
2009 Proposed $145/hr $72.50/hr
2007 & 2008 $140/hr $70/hr
2005 & 2006 $135/hr $70/hr
2003 & 2004 $130/hr $70/hr
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds to cover this increase are in the 2009 proposed budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Addendum to Agreement for Professional City Attorney Services
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Civil Attorney Fee Increase
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
Effective January 1, 2009, City Contract # 4078 between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“City”) and Campbell Knutson, P.A. (“Contractor”) is amended to provide for the following hourly
rates for legal services:
Attorney $145.00/hr
Law Clerks/Paralegals $ 72.50/hr
Approved by City Council October 6, 2008
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk City Manager
CONTRACTOR
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
By
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment Relating to Dogs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Second Reading to Adopt Ordinance amending Sections 4-81 through 4-89
concerning dogs, approve summary, and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the ordinance for second reading as presented?
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 dog regulations. 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 on off leash voice control. Council directed that the
off leash voice control language be deleted from Section 4-84 (b)(2) and that the ordinance then be
brought forward for first reading.
On September 15, 2008, Council approved first reading and set second reading for October 6,
2008.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
ORDINANCE NO. ____-08
AN 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Subject: Second 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Subject: Second 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.
(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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 6
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
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.
(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:
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 7
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(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:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public
or private property;
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 8
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(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;
(4) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under
subsection (e) of this section;
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 9
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(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
death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 10
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
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
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority
officer are admissible without further foundation.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 11
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
(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.
(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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 12
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
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
convicted of any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 13
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 14
Subject: Second 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 shall take effect 15 days after its publication.
First Reading September 15, 2008
Second Reading October 6, 2008
Date of Publication October 16, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect October 31, 2008
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 of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 15
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendments Relating to Dogs
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, SECTIONS 4-81 THROUGH 4-89 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING DOGS.
This ordinance amends City of St. Louis Park Ordinance Sections 4-81 through 4-89 to achieve
alignment with changes made by the Minnesota legislature relative to dangerous and potentially
dangerous dogs. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in the St. Louis Park Sailor: October 16, 2008
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Report: Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation - Project 2006-2000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2006-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Improvement Project No. 2006-2000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue implementing planned improvements to the City’s water
utility system?
BACKGROUND:
History
The current 5-year CIP includes Project No. 2006-2000, which is for the rehabilitation of Water
Treatment Plant No. 8 (WTP #8) located at 9701 W. 16th Street.
Around 1970, the City expanded the existing Well #8 building and constructed a pressure filtration
plant adjacent to the well which has since been called WTP #8. The main purpose of WTP #8 is to
remove iron and manganese from the well water. The plant is now more than 30 years old and in
need of rehabilitation. This project will be conducted in the same manner as the WTP #16 project
recently completed in 2007.
Proposed Work
Similar to what was done successfully at WTP #4 and 16, the City plans to replace the old granular
filter media at WTP #8 with Calgon GSR Plus media. Filter media will be purchased directly by the
City and then be installed by the contractor as a part of the plant rehabilitation project. Past
sampling data indicates that combined Radium 226/228 levels are below current safe drinking water
standards, but provisions will be made to allow for the installation of radium removal equipment
should future radium removal become necessary.
The project will also involve expansion of the chemical room, several process improvements,
including sandblasting and repainting the existing filter tanks and process piping, replacing the well
discharge piping and flow meter, replacing the yard piping and valves between the plant and the
distribution system, replacing the air compressor, and adding a digital scale for the fluoride tank.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Project Report: Water Project – Rehabilitate WTP #* – Project 2006-2000
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
could be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council October 6, 2008
• Advertise for bids Construction Bulletin October 13 & 20, 2008
• Advertise for bids Sun Sailor October 16 & 23, 2008
• Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting with Bidders October 30, 2008
• Bid Opening November 4, 2008
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract November 17, 2008
• Construction Dec. 2008 to May 2009
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). The C.I.P amount approved was $575,000. The cost difference between the C.I.P. amount
and the estimated cost below is a combination of additional structural work needed in the chemical
room and higher than anticipated construction inflation.
The costs shown below are currently estimated construction, engineering, and administrative costs.
Staff has verified that adequate funds are available in the Water Utility Fund for this work.
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $556,000
Contingencies (10%) $ 55,600
Consulting Design, Engineering & Inspection $ 89,470
Administrative Cost (3%) $ 16,680
Total $717,750
Funding Sources Amount
Water Utility Fund $717,750
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Project Report: Water Project – Rehabilitate WTP #* – Project 2006-2000
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-2000
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-2000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Public Works Coordinator related to the Rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant No. 8.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2006-2000 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the
Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2006-2000, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk,
and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Special Assessment for Sewer Service Line Repair at 5925 West 34th Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
5925 West 34th Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Jerry and Karen Cleveland, owners of the single family residence at 5925 West 34th Street, have requested the
City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the
community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service line 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 sewer service line in compliance with current codes and
regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The
property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of
the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $3,970.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment for Sewer Service Line Repair at 5925 W. 34th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
5925 WEST 34TH STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 5925 West 34th Street have petitioned the City of St. Louis
Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family
residence located at 5925 West 34th Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer
service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $3,970.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the
special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by
ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary
to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Change Order No. 1 to Contract 72-08 – Street Project – Park Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-
1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 72-08 - Street Project – Park Place Boulevard –
Project No. 2007-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total contract expenditures exceed $100,000.
BACKGROUND:
History
On June 2, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract to Valley Paving, Inc. that provides for
construction of the Park Place Boulevard Improvements. The contract is based on construction plans
prepared by SRF Consulting Engineers and approved by the City Council on April 28, 2008.
As part of the Park Place Boulevard Improvements, the establishment of a Special Service District (SSD)
with adjacent property owners is needed to provide for the long term maintenance of the streetscape and
lighting amenities that are being installed as part of the project. In addition to Duke Properties, this also
includes several other property owners, primarily on the west side of Park Place Boulevard. Staff from
Community Development and Public Works has been working with these properties extensively over
the past several months, and are nearing finalization of establishing the SSD.
The original extent of the plans provided for reconstruction of the roadway itself from Wayzata
Boulevard to Gamble Drive. Lighting, streetscape, and multi-use trail amenities were proposed only for
that portion where the roadway itself is actually being widened and reconstructed. Because of the
deteriorated condition of the remaining roadway between Gamble Drive and Cedar Lake Road, a simple
mill and overlay for that segment was included as part of the project.
As discussions with property owners regarding the SSD have progressed over the past few months, a
desire to extend the streetscape improvements the remaining distance south to Cedar Lake Road has
been expressed. This would provide further uniformity and aesthetic value to the entire corridor.
Essentially, the added improvements would be minimal (consistent with the current improvements to be
installed on the west side of Park Place Boulevard), and include lighting, boulevard trees, and extension
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 72-08 for Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project 2007-1101
of the trail improvements. Higher level improvements, such as those proposed on the West End
Property (decorative pavers, planters, etc.) are not proposed. The street itself would remain as is, with
the exception of the mill and overlay and random curb repairs as needed. This will allow for minimum
improvements while avoiding costly reconstruction into the intersection with Cedar Lake Road which is
not needed at this time. It is expected that future improvements to the intersection with Cedar Lake
Road may occur after the completion of future phases of the West End Development, and traffic in the
area is further evaluated. The cost of maintaining the improvement extensions will be wrapped into the
Special Service District. Additional easements as needed for the extended improvements are also in the
process of being acquired.
Additional Work Items
Additional work added to Valley Paving, Inc.’s contract by Change Order No. 1 (attached) can
essentially be summarized as additional quantities of items already provided for in the current
contract. This generally includes additional lighting, trees, turf restoration, and bituminous
pavement. The attached Change Order lists the quantities and amounts in more detail. An extension
to the Contractor’s required completion date has also been provided to allow for the additional
construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
Unit prices for a majority of the work items have already been established through the original contract.
The cost of some items such as the light and banner poles have increased since the time of the original
bid last spring, and the City’s consultant for this project (SRF) has verified pricings accordingly. The
source of funding for this contract work is Developer/EDA funds. The work to be performed by the
Contractor under Contract 72-08 is now revised as follows:
Original Contract $ 4,038,465.97
Change Order No. 1 $ 210,964.64
Total $ 4,249,430.61
Original estimates for the roadway and streetscape portions of Park Place Boulevard were $5,000,000
and $1,500,000, respectfully. With the addition of Change Order No. 1, along with engineering,
administrative, and other costs, the projected final cost of the project still falls within those original
estimates. The cost of the improvements will be paid from Developer and EDA funds.
Projected Costs
Street Reconstruction $ 5,000,000
Streetscape Construction $ 1,500,000
Projected Funding
Development Agreement (Duke) $ 250,000
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) $ 5,000,000
HRA Levy and/or TIF $ 1,250,000
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 72-08 for Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project 2007-1101
Contract Terms
All other terms of the Contract will remain the same, with the exception of extending the completion
date for the project for this extra work. All contract work must be completed by August 15, 2009
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Design of the Park Place Boulevard Roadway and Streetscape Improvements will consider and
accomplish the following Vision related goals:
Sidewalks and Trails and Transportation:
1. Will provide improved safety and facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Will provide stronger links to destinations, including gathering centers and transit facilities.
Attachment: Change Order No. 1
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 72-08 for Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project 2007-1101
Contract No.: 72-08
Change Order No.: 1 Date: October 6, 2008
Project Name: Park Place Boulevard Improvements
Project Location: Park Place Blvd between Cedar Lake Road and I-394 South Ramps
Contractor: Valley Paving, Inc. 8800 13th Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone No. 952-445-8615
Type of Work: Extension of the bituminous walk along SB Park Place Blvd., including additional bituminous walk, lights,
trees, lighting conduit, removals, landscaping, etc. and EVP system revisions.
Amount of Original Contract: $4,038,465.97
Description of Work to be Increased:
Unit Contract Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
6” Concrete Walk Sq. Ft. $5.06 1450 $7,337.00 422 $2,135.32
3” Bituminous Walk Sq. Ft. $1.37 11480 $15,727.60 6266 $8,584.42
Truncated Domes Sq. Ft. $44.97 168 $7,554.96 72 $3,237.84
Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B612 Lin. Ft. $10.07 4520 $45,516.40 50 $503.50
Remove Concrete Walk Sq. Ft. $0.78 25085 $19,566.30 3524 $2,748.72
Remove Concrete Median Sq. Ft. $0.78 10720 $8,361.6 821 $640.38
Clearing Tree $46.25 50 $2,312.50 10 $462.50
Grubbing Tree $25.70 50 $1,285.00 10 $257.00
Remove Curb and Gutter Lin. Ft. $2.70 12180 $32,886.00 50 $135.00
Sodding Type Salt Resistant Sq. Yd. $3.08 4765 $14,676.20 1048 $3,227.84
Storm Drain Inlet Protection Each $110.00 80 $8,800.00 1 $110.00
Common Excavation Cu. Yd. $11.90 6900 $82,110.00 595 $7,080.50
Salvage Lighting Unit Each $154.18 26 $4,008.68 5 $770.90
Remove Light Base Each $300.00 23 $6,900.00 6 $1,800.00
Remove Hydrant Each $150.37 4 $601.48 1 $150.37
Aggregate Base (CV) Class 5 Cu. Yd. $22.30 5785 $129,005.50 116 $2,586.80
Hydrant Each $2,881.09 4 $11,524.36 1 $2,881.09
Crosswalk Marking – Poly Preform Sq. Ft. $7.21 3798 $27,383.58 156 $1,124.76
6” Megalug Each $55.50 13 $721.50 1 $55.50
Connect to Existing Watermain Each $893.69 4 $3,574.76 1 $893.69
Lighting Unit Type Special 1 Each $6,237.00** 34 $182,254.62 14 $87,318.00
Light Base Design E Each $621.87 74 $46,018.38 14 $8,706.18
2” Rigid Steel Conduit Lin. Ft. $10.54 40 $421.60 40 $421.60
2” Non-Metallic Conduit Lin. Ft. $3.60 4763 $17,146.80 1020* $3,672.00
2” Non-Metallic Conduit (Directional
Bore) Lin. Ft. $14.39 250 $3,597.50 185 $2,662.15
3” Non-Metallic Conduit Lin. Ft. $5.17 3670 $18,973.90 40 $206.80
Underground Wire 1 Cond No 3/0 Lin. Ft. $3.49 186 $649.14 156 $544.44
Underground Wire 1 Cond No 6 Lin. Ft. $0.86 41289 $35,508.54 6483 $5,575.38
Underground Wire 1 Cond No 10 Lin. Ft. $0.51 25729 $13,121.79 3630 $1,851.30
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 72-08 for Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project 2007-1101
Service Cabinet Each $7,256.00** 2 $10,535.82 1 $7,256.00
Equipment Pad Each $848.01 2 $1,696.02 1 $848.01
Handhole Each $791.47 38 $30,075.86 2 $1,582.94
Deciduous Tree 2.5” Cal B&B Each $298.07 141 $42,027.87 19 $5,663.33
Concrete Pavers Type Special A Sq. Ft. $5.75 13116 $75,417.00 3277 $18,842.75
Banner Pole Each $3,965.50** 23 $79,789.53 4 $15,862.00
Total of Revised Quantity $200,399.01
* Includes 75 LF for changes to Emergency Vehicle Preemption System C.
** Original Contract price modified due to increases in material cost.
Description of Work to be Reduced:
Unit Contract Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Irrigation System Lump
Sum $50,877.11 1 $50,877.11 1 $50,877.11
Install Lighting Unit Each $335.09 3 $1,005.27 1 $335.09
Install Concrete Light Base Each $544.78 3 $1,634.34 1 $544.78
Total of Revised Quantity $51,756.98
Description of Work to be Added:
Unit Contract Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Irrigation System Lump
Sum $57,377.11 0 $0.00 1 $57,377.11
Remove Service Cabinet Each $550.00 0 $0.00 1 $550.00
One Way EVP Detector Each $791.00 0 $0.00 2* $1,582.00
3/C#20 Lin. Ft. $1.16 0 $0.00 1100* $1,276.00
1/C#6 Insulated Ground Lin. Ft. $1.50 0 $0.00 1025* $1,537.50
Total of Revised Quantity $62,322.61
* Quantities included in changes to Emergency Vehicle Preemption Systems B and C.
Description of Changes to be made to specifications:
Item 3. Commencement and Completion of the Agreement for Construction of Park Place Boulevard shall be
revised to read as follows.
The Contractor shall commence work under this contract within eight (8) calendar days after
the date of the “Notice to Proceed” and shall fully complete all work on or before August 15,
2009.
S-16 (1806) Determination and Extension of Contract Time of Division S of the Special Provisions shall
remain in effect except for work and items contained in this change order. Work in this change order shall be
complete on or before August 15, 2009.
Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $ 210,964.64
Original Contract Price: $ 4,038,465.97
Previous Change Orders $ 0.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $ 4,249,430.61
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 72-08 for Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project 2007-1101
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in
original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector 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: October 6, 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:
Traffic Control Signal Agreement – Street Project – Park Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 93080-R and authorizing
the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement – Street Project – Park Place Boulevard – Project
No. 2007-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The attached resolution is consistent with current operation agreements and procedures between the
City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the development, design, and construction of Park Place Boulevard Improvements, the
existing traffic signals at Wayzata Boulevard, 16th Street, and Gamble Drive will be replaced. Temporary
traffic control signals have also been installed as an interim measure during the course of construction.
The City and State will be sharing joint responsibilities for the construction of the new signals and their
long term maintenance. Agreement 93080-R provides detailed assignments and descriptions of the
respective responsibilities. The agreement is consistent with similar agreements currently in place for
Park Place Boulevard, as well as other locations throughout the City. Essentially, the City and State will
jointly be participating in the cost, maintenance, and operation of the temporary and new traffic control
signals, EVP (Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems), and the interconnect of the signals.
In summary, the City is responsible for the construction of the signals, and for supplying and paying for
the power. The City will also be responsible for re-lamping of the signals and street lights as needed,
cleaning and painting of the signals, and replacements of luminares when necessary. The State will be
responsible for maintaining the signal cabinets and control equipment, repairing knockdowns,
maintaining the signal interconnect, and will be responsible for the timing and operation of the new
Traffic Control Signals and EVP system.
As previously stated, the agreement as written is consistent with other agreements currently in place.
This agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days notice. The City Attorney has also
reviewed the agreement.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Traffic Control Signal Agreement – Park Place Boulevard
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The installation cost of the new signal equipment is included with the cost of the Park Place Boulevard
Improvements, which is funded from a combination of EDA and Developer funds. The operating costs
will continue to be funded from the City’s operating budget, as it currently does.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Design of the Park Place Boulevard Roadway and Streetscape Improvements will consider and
accomplish the following Vision related goals:
Sidewalks and Trails and Transportation:
1. Will provide improved safety and facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Will provide stronger links to destinations, including gathering centers and transit facilities.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Traffic Control Signal Agreement – Park Place Boulevard
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - ___
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 93080-R
WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT – STREET PROJECT – PARK PLACE
BOULEVARD – PROJECT NO. 2007-1101.
WHEREAS, traffic control signals are in the process of being constructed as part of the Park
Place Boulevard Improvements, City Project 2007-1101; and
WHEREAS, said traffic control signals are located at the intersections of Park Place Boulevard
with Wayzata Boulevard, 16th Street, and Gamble Drive; and
WHEREAS, consistent with current policies of the City of St. Louis Park and the State of
Minnesota, the City and State share joint responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the traffic
control signals; and
WHEREAS, consistent with current practice and policy, the City and State shall enter into an
agreement providing for the installation and long term maintenance and operation of the signals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the City enter into MN/DOT Agreement No. 93080-R with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
Install and remove temporary traffic control signals, remove the existing traffic control signals, install
new traffic control signals with street lights, install emergency vehicle pre-emption, signal interconnect,
and signing, all on Park Place Boulevard (formerly Vernon Avenue) at Gamble Drive, West 16th Street,
and Wayzata Boulevard (I-394 South Frontage Road).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute
said Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Encroachment Agreement
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve Encroachment Agreement at 4349 Browndale Avenue.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve Encroachment Agreement with 4349 Browndale Avenue for use of City right-of-way
for two (2) retaining walls.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The process for considering the proposed Encroachment Agreement has followed City policy and
procedures. Does the City Council wish to approve the agreement as proposed??
BACKGROUND:
The Schreifels own the single-family home at 4349 Browndale Avenue and wish to widen their driveway
from 10 feet to 22 feet to provide more off street parking for their vehicles. There is an approximate 4-
foot tall retailing wall that runs along their driveway that will have to be moved to accommodate the
wider driveway they are proposing. The retaining wall is necessary due to the grade of the yard.
Additionally, the Schreifels constructed a small retaining wall on the east side of their property, closer to
Browndale Park. This wall was constructed last summer in the right-of-way, not on park property,
without an encroachment agreement. There was a complaint made to the city about this wall, citing
concerns with reduced parking due to the new wall. At that time staff contacted the Schreifels about
applying for an encroachment agreement. No application was made at the time, and now the Schreifels
are applying for an encroachment agreement that will cover both walls. The retaining wall next to the
driveway is necessary because the Schreifels are removing an existing retaining wall and need to maintain
the grade next to the driveway. The smaller retaining wall that the Schreifels have already installed is
desired by the Schreifels to provide some protection against erosion, due to the slope of the site.
City staff has reviewed this request at staffs Development Review Committee (DRC) and has found no
conflicts with any public facilities at this time. No sidewalks or other facilities are planned for this area.
The Parks & Recreation Department sees no issue in allowing the existing retaining wall to remain, as
they do not believe that it reduces parking in the area. The retaining walls will need to meet all zoning
and building code requirements.
The proposed encroachment agreement allows the City to terminate this agreement upon thirty (30)
days notice to the property owner. The standard agreement which was drafted by the City Attorney will
be used. The agreement will be recorded against the property and run with the land. All costs of
construction, future maintenance, relocation or removal would be borne by the property owner.
Approval of the encroachment agreement will be subject to verification that there is no interference with
utilities.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Encroachment Agmt – 4349 Browndale Ave
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The costs of executing this agreement will be covered by the fee paid by the applicant.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
46
4351
4349
4345
4355
4341
BROWNDALE AVEEncroachment Agreement at 4349 Browndale Avenue
Existing 4 foot retaining wall next to driveway
Proposed retaining wall next to widened driveway
Short retaining wall extending from end of street
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Encroachment Agmt – 4349 Browndale Ave Page 3
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Amend Consultant Contract 06-08 - Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation - Project 2006-
2000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 06-08 - Water Project - WTP #8 Filter
Rehabilitation - Project 2006-2000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total contract expenditures exceed $100,000.
BACKGROUND:
History and Recent Activities
In January 2008 the City Council approved a contract for consulting services with Progressive
Consulting Engineers (PCE) for the design, plan preparation, construction engineering, and project
inspection for the rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant No. 8. Design work began in January
with plan approval and authorization to bid the project expected in October.
Additional Professional Services
After the design began, it was determined that there was additional architectural services required
relating to moving an interior wall and doorway in the equipment / chemical room to allow for the
installation of hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) chemical equipment, relocation of ventilation
equipment, and improved operations. This additional design work was requested by City staff and
results in additional costs of $4,000.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
Staff has negotiated the cost for this extra work with the Contractor at $4,000.00. The source of
funding for this contract work is the Water Utility.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 06-08 – WTP #8 – Project No. 2006-2000
The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 06-08 is now estimated as follows:
Original Contract $ 85,470.00
Amendment No. 1 $ 4,000.00
Total $ 89,470.00
Contract Terms
All other terms of the Contract will remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Amendment 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 06-08 – WTP #8 – Project No. 2006-2000
AMENDMENT NO 1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 06-08
THIS AGREEMENT is made on October 6, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”),
and Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“PCE”).
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated January 7, 2008 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes PCE
to provide engineering consulting services for the design, plan preparation, construction
engineering, and project inspection for the rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant No. 8 of
Project No. 2006-2000 at a cost not to exceed $85,470.00.
2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES: This paragraph shall be amended to include the
additional engineering services outlined in the PCE proposal dated September 11, 2008.
3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES: This paragraph is
amended to reflect the additional design work provided by PCE.
4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES: Subject to the modifications set
forth herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $4,000 from $85,470
to $89,470.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and________________________________
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Antenna Lease Agreement with TTM – 2541 Nevada Avenue So.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution to enter into a lease agreement between the City and TTM Operating
Corporation, Inc. (TTM) for space on the water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue for a
communications antenna.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City has negotiated nine (9) leases with four (4) vendors regarding use of the City’s water towers
for placement of antenna for the transmission and reception of radio communication signals.
Similar types of agreements have been negotiated throughout the metro area as these companies are
setting up a network of new communication systems. TTM is proposing to use space on the City’s
existing water tower located at 2541 Nevada Avenue thereby not requiring the construction of a
separate antenna tower. This is the first antenna lease negotiated with TTM.
This agreement is based on our standard lease earlier developed by the City. Our City Attorney has
assisted in the preparation and review of this agreement.
The agreement is attached and provides for the following:
• Placement of one (1) antenna, 100’ above the ground.
• Five (5) year initial lease term with four (4) additional five (5) year renewals.
• Rent of $7,333 for Year 1 with a 5% escalator for each year of the Agreement (rent subject to
change if additional antennas are added).
• Communications equipment to be mounted on a bracket outside and adjacent to the tower
designed, built, and maintained by TTM.
• Right of pre-emption by the City if necessary for public safety communication needs.
• Non-exclusive use allowing the City to lease available space to others.
• Appropriate termination provisions, insurances and protections.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Antenna Lease Agreement – 2541 Nevada Ave. So.
The antenna configuration proposes one (1) 2’ round dish mounted on the balcony railing
approximately 100’ above ground and painted to match the color of the tower. While this dish
antenna will be visible it will not be obtrusive and will not extend up above the tower in any way.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has negotiated the lease revenue amount using the rent formula established for previous
antenna contracts. The Year 1 lease rent amount is $7,333, with a 5% escalation factor for each
following year of the contract.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Subject: Antenna Lease Agreement – 2541 Nevada Ave. So.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park wishes to enter into a non-
exclusive lease agreement with TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., (TTM) for the use of space at the
City water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works or designee has negotiated a lease agreement with
terms acceptable to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby
authorized to enter into a lease agreement with TTM for the leasing of space at the City water tower
site located at 2541 Nevada Avenue for the purposes of a communication antenna and related base
equipment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such lease term shall be for a period of five (5) years
commencing immediately with the right of TTM to extend the initial term for four (4) additional
five (5) year terms with an initial term annual rent amount of $7,333 and a 5% annual escalation
each following year of the contract.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve the Third Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and
Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Highway
7 Business Center LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support providing Highway 7 Business Center LLC with an additional
$95,000 in tax increment financing to cover a portion of the environmental and business relocation
cost overages incurred in conjunction with the Highway 7 Corporate Center project?
BACKGROUND:
At the September 8, 2008 study session, Paul Hyde with Real Estate Recycling (representing
Highway 7 Business Center LLC) discussed his company’s request for an additional $280,000 in tax
increment related to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project. Mr. Hyde explained that his firm
incurred a total budget overrun of approximately $1.6 million on the project. Of this amount,
approximately $1.3 million was attributable to building construction costs which his business
covered. The remaining $280,000 in expenditures was attributable to greater than anticipated
environmental cleanup, legal fees and business relocation/reestablishment costs over which his firm
had little control. After much discussion, there was consensus support for providing $115,000 in
additional tax increment financing to cover a portion of the environmental and business relocation
cost overages incurred by the Redeveloper in conjunction with the project.
Recently, the EDA’s relocation consultant determined that All Hours Towing is due approximately
$20,000 in additional Business Relocation and Reestablishment expenses as a result of the
redevelopment of the former Golden Auto/National Lead site from which All Hours was relocated.
Under Section 3.6 of the EDA’s Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC the
Redeveloper agreed to indemnify the EDA from all relocation claims due as result of implementation
of the agreement. More recently the IRS served a levy on both the EDA and the City as a result of
All Hours being in arrears for payment of federal payroll withholding taxes. According to the IRS
notice any funds otherwise payable to All Hours are subject to these levies and are required to be
paid promptly to the IRS. In order to satisfy the levy obligation with the IRS the relocation
payment must be made in short order. Real Estate Recycling has disclosed that it does not have the
financial capacity to make such a payment at this time due to current financial restraints facing the
firm. It has therefore agreed to accept a $20,000 reduction in the amount of additional tax
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
increment to be provided by the EDA. The EDA would then make the required Relocation
payment to the IRS from the Development Fund and then be reimbursed with tax increment
generated from the project. By separate action the EDA has been asked to adopt an Interfund Loan
Resolution authorizing to repay the Development Fund $20,000 out of available tax increment once
its obligation to the Redeveloper is fully paid.
Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract
The Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
(Redeveloper) contains the following revisions which are summarized below.
In order to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the overage costs noted above, it is proposed
that the EDA issue, and the Redeveloper purchase, additional Notes (the “Additional Notes”) in the
maximum amount of $95,000. The Notes will be issued in two series: (i) Series 2008C issued as
reimbursement for additional environmental costs in the amount of $72,000; and (ii) Series 2008D
issued as reimbursement of additional business relocation costs in the amount of $23,000. The
Series 2008C Note is secured by available Hazardous Substance Subdistrict Tax Increment together
with available Redevelopment District Tax Increment; and the Series 2008D Note is secured solely by
Available Redevelopment Increment.
The Additional Notes will be dated as of the date of delivery, and interest will accrue from that date.
The pledge of available Tax Increment to the Additional Notes will be subordinate to the pledge of
available Tax Increment to the original Series 2008A and Series 2008B Notes.
The Redeveloper understands that the EDA makes no warranties regarding the amount of available
Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Additional Notes will be sufficient to pay the
principal and interest on the Additional Notes. Redeveloper further understands that estimates of
Tax Increment prepared by the EDA or its financial advisors in connection with the Highway 7
Corporate Center TIF District are not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may
rely.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center
LLC provides the firm with an additional $95,000 in tax increment financing to partially offset
greater than anticipated environmental and business relocation costs incurred in conjunction with
the Highway 7 Corporate Center project.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Subject: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Highway 7 Business Center LLC
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Commitment to the Highway 7 Corporate Center project is consistent with St. Louis Park’s vision
for protecting the environment and creating the jobs and tax base necessary to support the city’s
diverse population as well as fund infrastructure like trails, sidewalks, and other transportation.
Attachments: None - please see corresponding EDA report
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Change Order No. 1 to Contract 113-07 – Furnish Decorative Street Lighting for Excelsior Blvd Streetscape
Project – Project No. 2004-0100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 113-07 – Furnish Decorative Street Lighting for
Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project – Project No. 2004-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total contract expenditures exceed $100,000.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on October 4, 2007, to furnish decorative street lighting poles and fixtures. Council
awarded a contract to Carlos Lachmansingh Sales, Inc. at their October 15, 2007 meeting in the amount of
$424,189.50. The decorative street lighting was installed as part of the streetscaping element for the Excelsior
Blvd. Reconstruction Project (Xenwood to Dakota Avenues). The street lighting poles and fixtures are the
City’s financial obligation under the terms of the Project Agreement with Hennepin County.
During the construction of the project, it was determined that extra lighting fixtures were needed. The traffic
control signal systems at the intersections of Excelsior Blvd. and Alabama Avenue/Brookside Avenue and at
the intersection of Excelsior Blvd and Xenwood Avenue/Hwy 100 had a standard non-decorative light fixture
on top of the signal poles. City staff authorized the purchase of six decorative lighting fixture units to change
out the standard light fixtures on top of the traffic signal poles. Since there were no items in the contract for
the purchase of light fixtures alone, Change Order No. 1 was negotiated to provide for a unit price on the
decorative light fixture. The unit price for a decorative light fixture is $2,050.00 resulting in a total cost of
$12,300.00 for Change Order No. 1.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The additional cost for the decorative light fixtures will be paid from EDA Funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Change Order No. 1
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 1 to Contract 113-07 – Furnish decorative street lights (Project No. 2004-0100)
Contract No.: 113-07
Change Order No.: 1 Date: September 19, 2008
Project Name: Furnishing of Decorative Street Lighting Poles and Fixtures, Banner Poles, and
Luminaires
Project Location: Excelsior Boulevard, from HWY 1000 to Dakota Avenue
Contractor: Carlo Lachmansingh Sales, Inc. 4801 4th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55419 Phone No.
Type of Work: Supply Sheridan Type “A” Luminaires.
Amount of Original Contract: $424,189.50
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted: Supply six (6) Sheridan Type “A” Luminaires (SH65-CG-25H-
QT-HR3-NU-TN-BRZ-LU250) to be installed at signal poles, four (4) at Alabama Avenue and two (2) at Hwy
100.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Supply Sheridan Type “A”
Luminaires (SH65-CG-25H-HR3-
NU-TN-BRZ LU250)
EACH $2,050.00 6.0 $12,300.00
Total with Revised Quantity $ 12,300.00
Less Contract Amount
Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $12,300.00
Original Contract Price: $424,189.50
Previous Change Orders (None) 0.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $ 436,489.50
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Engineer 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: October 6, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 113-07 – Carlo Lachmansingh Sales, Inc. (2004-0400).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $33,509.48 for furnishing of
decorative street lighting poles and fixtures, banner poles, and luminaries, Project No. 2004-0400 with
Carlo Lachmansingh Sales, Inc.., City Contract No. 113-07.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on October 4, 2007, to furnish decorative street lighting poles and fixtures. The
decorative street lighting poles and fixtures were installed as part of the streetscaping element for the
Excelsior Blvd. Reconstruction Project (Xenwood to Dakota Avenues). The street lighting poles and
fixtures are the City’s financial obligation under the terms of the Project Agreement with Hennepin
County. On October 15, 2007 the City Council approved Contract No. 113-07 with Carlo
Lachmansingh Sales, Inc. in the amount of $424,189.50
Staff is requesting approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $12,300 for additional luminaires
under a separate consent item at the October 6, 2008 City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Approximately $88,000 of the cost will be paid through Hennepin County’s Roadside Enhancement
Partnership Program (REPP). The remaining costs will be the responsibility of the City which will be
paid using EDA funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution – Carlo Lachmansingh Sales Contract No. 113-07 (Project 2004-0400)
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FURNISHINGS OF
DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTING POLES AND FIXTURES,
BANNER POLES, AND LUMINAIRES
PROJECT NO. 2004-0400
CONTRACT NO. 113-07
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated October 15, 2007, Carlo Lachmansingh Sales, Inc. has
satisfactorily supplied the furnishings of decorative street lighting poles and fixtures, banner poles, and
luminaires, as per Contract No. 113-07.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make
final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Original Contract Price $ 424,189.50
Change Orders $ 12,300.00
Previous Payments $ 402,980.02
Balance Due $ 33,509.48
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment – Oak Hill 3501 LLC (Anderson Builders).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment relating to the
Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill 3501 LLC
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA and City Council approve of the Assignment, Assumption and Consent to
Assignment relating to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill
3501 LLC?
BACKGROUND:
On December 15, 2003 the EDA and Anderson Builders (Oak Hill 3501 LLC and Redeveloper)
entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract which resulted in the construction of the Oak
Hill Office Building located at 3555 Louisiana Ave S. (the Northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue &
Walker Street). Anderson Builders has recently agreed to sell the office building to R and N Real
Estate LLC (St. Louis Park based Twin Cities Periodontics). Anderson Builders plans to remain in
the building through the summer of 2009 as it constructs a new office building next door. Once
Anderson relocates into its new building, Twin Cities Periodontics plans to customize the Oak Hill
building which it plans to occupy in early 2010.
Pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract, the Redeveloper has certain rights and responsibilities
regarding any assignment of the Redevelopment Contract, and the “Redevelopment Property”. The
EDA agreed in the Contract to consent to the transfer of the Redeveloper’s interest under the
Redevelopment Contract to a transferee upon compliance with the requirements of Section 8.2 of
the Redevelopment Agreement.
The Redeveloper, pursuant to a Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 2008 has agreed to assign all of
its rights, interests and obligations accruing under the Redevelopment Contract subsequent to
transfer of the Redevelopment Property to R and N Real Estate LLC.
The Redeveloper has requested the consent of the EDA of the assignment of all it’s obligations and
rights under the Redevelopment Contract and seeks to be released from it’s obligations under that
agreement.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4n) Page 2
Subject: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 3501 LLC
An “Assignment, Assumption, and Consent to Assign” (the “Assignment”) has been prepared which
addresses the transfer of the Redevelopment Contract and its subject property. One feature of this
Assignment is that the assignor (Oak Hill 3501 LLC) is being released from any future liability
accruing under the Redevelopment Agreement, but is not being released from any liability that may
have accrued to the date of the Assignment. This requirement is consistent with Section 8.2 of the
Redevelopment Contract and relates to potential liability arising from environmental concerns
relating to construction and operation of the office building, since this project was originally subject
to the Reilly Tar Consent Decree. In this regard, it appears that the Redeveloper has complied with
all of its requirements under the Redevelopment Contract concerning the Reilly Tar Consent Decree
and the environmental requirements imposed upon it when it constructed the office building.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Assignment & Assumption does not have a direct financial impact on the EDA.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Assignment, Assumption and Consent to Assignment relating to the
Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Oak Hill 3501 LLC (please
see corresponding EDA report)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4o
OFFICIAL 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
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 6, 2008
Claudia-Johnston Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes. Lynne
Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Shapiro abstained).
3. Hearings
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
Mr. Morrison said the final plat will dedicate a 19 foot road right-of-way along 36th St. and
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 signed no-parking 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
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 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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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.
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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).
Commissioner Shapiro left the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
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
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, 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.
Dean Duvolis, architect, gave an overview of the project.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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 reguiding. He commented that the
change in land use guide should stand on its own.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about issues occuring if the reguiding 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 10
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
Chair Robertson asked about buffers and any mixed-use abutting single family residential in the
City.
Mr. Walther spoke about Excelsior & 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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 11
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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
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 Carlise dated
September 3, 2008, which reflected a number of the concerns expressed by residents at the public
hearing.
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.
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 12
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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.
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4o) Page 13
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3 2008
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).
4. Other Business: None
5. Communications
Ms. McMonigal noted that the Planning Commission will meet on September 17th,
October 15, and October 22nd.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4p
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 7 p.m.
The Rec Center Programming Office
Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order
Chair Mr. Hallfin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commission members present: Bruce Cornwall, George Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, Kirk
Hawkinson, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: George Foulkes and Lauren Webb-Hazlett.
Staff present: Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor, Jordan Swanson, Intern, Stacy Voelker,
Recording Secretary, and Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation.
2. Presentation: Girls Traveling Basketball Association
Association Representatives present: Mary Agather, President, Karla Wolgemuth, Marla
MacDonald, Duane Glisan, and Ha-Keem Abdel-Khaliq, coach.
Mr. Hallfin provided a brief description of the information the Commission would like to
receive. Mr. Agather introduced himself and Association representatives; the Commission
and staff introduced themselves.
Mr. Agather indicated the Association would like more open communication for the City
and Association to work together. He indicated girls traveling basketball and the High
School (grades 4 through Senior High) have combined due to low participation numbers.
This allowed for one team to be created in each grade level. The traveling level is for grades 5
through 8. Mr. Agather advised the teams play a large range of levels with some introductory
to basketball.
Mr. Glisan indicated in the past, the association was advised by the city they were unable to
contact registrants involved in the city league to advise of traveling offerings. Mr. Glisan feels
that is one reason registration is low. Ms. Walsh apologized of misdirected communication
and advised due to State and Federal privacy laws, the names, addresses, and personal
information of participants cannot be distributed. Staff could provide registrants and coaches
with information brochure on offerings from the association. Mr. Agather advised
informational flyers were distributed at city camps. Ms. Walsh and Mr. Rosa welcomed
information to be included in the Parks & Recreation brochure and flyers to distribute to
participants. Mr. Worthington inquired on what the city offers. Mr. Rosa advised the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
department offers instructional basketball for grades K through 6. Ms. Wolgemuth inquired
if staff has considered offering a girls only Junior Orioles activity; Mr. Rosa advised could
review but limited gym space is an issue. Ms. Walsh advised the city must also submit an
application for gym space as does the association. Mr. Agather feels the association could
attempt to acquire more gym space for Park and Recreation activities. Mr. Rosa advised a
majority of participants that register for city leagues do not want competitive play. Ms.
Wolgemuth feels an in-house league is beneficial to serve the community by offering clinics
versus leagues to teach basketball. Mr. Rosa informed attendees more practices will be
initiated next year due to feedback received from evaluations. Ms. Wolgemuth suggested
playing 4 on 4 and Mr. Rosa advised limited gym space is the only issue.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on clinics versus practices. Mr. Rosa indicated the city offers clinics
with practices and Mr. Agather advised the association offers clinics. Mr. Abdel-Khaliq feels
the game should be fun regardless of the level and would like to partner with the city to offer
fundamental teaching and discuss gym space. Mr. Rosa agreed to discuss opportunities with
association.
Mr. Hallfin inquired if outdoor basketball courts are utilized and Ms. Wolgemuth
questioned if the hoops are adjustable. Mr. Rosa indicated some outdoor hoops are
adjustable but the city holds their programs indoors. Mr. Hallfin suggested the association
offer an outdoor program.
Mr. Worthington inquired how to advertise and Ms. Walsh indicated they association could
advertise in the Parks & Recreation brochure and distribute flyers to registrants. Mr. Abdel-
Khaliq indicated he is currently researching the demand for different age group programs.
Mr. Hallfin inquired if the association could partner with the boys basketball for the clinics.
Ms. Wolgemuth indicated they are offering a camp in the near future. Mr. Hallfin suggested
partnering with the school and the city to get communication to the public. Mr. Glisan
inquired if the city would distribute a direct mailing; Ms. Walsh advised the postage budget
has been decreased and staff found the best way to communicate is by distributing flyers at
programs and announcing on the website. Mr. Glisan feels sending an email to participants
would be beneficial. Ms. Walsh suggested the association work with Mr. Rosa to survey if
participants are interested in receiving information on other basketball programs. Mr. Rosa
indicated distributing school flyers is another avenue. Mr. Worthington advised of the
“GoPark” feature on the school website.
Ms. Wolgemuth suggested partnering with other cities to obtain more participants. Mr. Rosa
advised staff has discussed with the cities of Minnetonka and Golden Valley. There is a
potential for a partnership with the City of Minnetonka; the City of Golden Valley is not
interested as their program has enough participants.
Mr. Glisan asked what age basketball is presented to individuals and what is done. Mr. Rosa
advised basketball is offer to children in Kindergarten and up.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
Staff, Commission and association discussed issues which include lack of gym space, late
registrations and due to budget cuts, parent volunteers teach. Mr. Agather and Mr. Hallfin
indicated late registration is a common issue. Ms. Wolgemuth heard participants have
enrolled in the Jewish Community Center program which offers an in-house program. Ms.
Walsh indicated private schools have their own teams and offerings.
Marla MacDonald inquired how individuals in grades 3 and up are taught. Mr. Rosa advised
parents are hired or volunteer to teach and are provided an instructional packet.
Mr. Agather invited Mr. Rosa to association meetings which are held in Wolfe Park.
Association thanked Commission and Commission thanked Association for the opportunity
to discuss. Mr. Rosa was complimented by the Commission on discussion.
3. Approval of Minutes
• April 19, 2008
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Worthington to approve the minutes from
the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion
passed 5-0.
4. New Business
a. Pedal for People Event (Nate Rosa)
Mr. Rosa distributed a “Pedal for People” flyer and map plus briefly described the Sunrise
Rotary sponsored event. The Commission was invited to participate in the activity and
encouraged to attend the ribbon cutting ceremony at 9:15 a.m. on Saturday, June 14 at the
new pedestrian/bicycle bridge grand opening.
b. Comprehensive Trail and Sidewalk Plan (Sean Walther)
Ms. Walsh introduced Sean Walther, Senior Planner. Mr. Walther advised inter-
departmental meetings have taken place to implement a CIP-type plan. Mr. Walther
indicated planning has continued and grant funds are secured. The secured grants include
transit for livable communities grant for around Park Place/Xenia area and grant funding
from Hennepin County on joint planning with Minnetonka/Hopkins on off-road trail and
on-road bike improvements on Minnetonka Boulevard.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
The railroad bridge crossing on Minnetonka Boulevard has moved along but not gone to
Council. Mr. Walther indicated staff will report to Council in late June as part of the Vision
and will incorporate various aspects of the project into the comprehensive plan. There are
not many details at this time.
Mr. Cornwall inquired if the trail on Belt Line Boulevard between The Rec Center and the
regional trail is an unsafe connection. Mr. Hagemann indicated the trail needs to be
resurfaced. Ms. Walsh advised when the Park Nicollet development is complete, staff will
ensure the connector trail and George Haun trail will be fixed. The fix will wait until the
Park Nicollet project is complete as some of trail will be torn up with that project.
Mr. Walther will advise Council that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission would
like the connector trail a priority. Members discussed and would like the trail to be off-road
for safety. Mr. Hagemann inquired of any knowledge for a new bicycle/pedestrian group or
specific city liaison (one central group); Mr. Walther indicated it was suggested in the Vision
study but Council has not recommended. Mr. Walther is the “informal” central contact
person. Mr. Walther will discuss with Council and inquire on the direction they’d like to
take.
It was moved by Commission Member Mr. Cornwall to recommend Council to move
the connection from the Regional Trail to The Rec Center on Belt Line Boulevard in
the trail and sidewalk plan to priority one. Motion passed 5-0.
5. Old Business
a. West End Final Plat & Park Dedication (Sean Walther)
Mr. Walther provided images of the West End proposal and briefly described them. Mr.
Walther advised preliminary PUD approval was received in March of 2008; in April of 2008
the project received final approval for the shopping center and the goal is to open in fall of
2009. The office space has not received final approval. Members briefly discussed and
thanked Mr. Walther for the update.
b. Fern Hill Park Redevelopment Plan
Ms. Walsh provided two maps to members. One map shows what Torah Academy owns and
what the city owns. The second map indicates the proposed park layout. Ms. Walsh briefly
reviewed the layout and the process to date with members and indicated there are a few
parking details to work on. Ms. Walsh advised Torah Academy has been great to work with.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
Council approved a tennis court be included in the design. Members inquired if lighting will
be included; Ms. Walsh advised the neighborhood is opposed to lighting. Mr. Hallfin feels a
high, overlapping backstop is very important; similar to the one at Skippy Field. Ms. Walsh
advised Torah Academy will pay for a portion of the parking lot reconstruction. Torah owns
the field and the city will maintain it; the city owns the playground and an agreement is in
place for all aspects of the park.
6. Communications
a. Chair
Mr. Hallfin advised the next meeting will be in September and wished all a good summer.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the resolution for WiFi. Ms. Walsh advised the project is in
litigation regarding the towers and unsure when they will all be removed. Mr. Hallfin
inquired what organization will move into the old Ford building; Ms. Walsh advised LA
Fitness appears to be the tenant.
Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Worthington wished all a good summer.
c. Program Report
None.
d. Directors Report
Ms. Walsh indicated Council advised staff to move forward to explore funding options to
incorporate art in St. Louis Park.
Ms. Walsh thanked members for their work cleaning up Minnehaha Creek and advised
internal staff has scheduled park pick up dates. Mr. Cornwall inquired if groups or neighbors
pick up parks; Ms. Walsh advised Sarah Krzesowiak, the City/School coordinator, organizes
groups and individuals for park pick up.
Staff prepared a revision to the vegetation ordinance to address Emerald Ash Bore which
went to Council and was approved. The ordinance changed to allow staff to deal with
additional diseases even though Emerald Ash Bore has not been found in the metro area at
this time. The ordinance also changed to include a permit process for controlled burns,
wildflower, etc. The permit process is educational and informative.
Ms. Walsh suggested members drive by Fern Hill Park to view the project.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4p) Page 6
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes May 21, 2008
Mr. Worthington inquired on the canoe ride with Council. Ms. Walsh indicated the
potential date will be Monday, June 23. Ms. Walsh will contact members when plans are
confirmed. The Council enjoyed the trip last year and encouraged Commission members to
attend.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Hagemann to adjourn. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4q
OFFICIAL 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
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 6, 2008
Claudia-Johnston Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes. Lynne
Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Shapiro abstained).
3. Hearings
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
Mr. Morrison said the final plat will dedicate a 19 foot road right-of-way along 36th St. and
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 signed no-parking 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
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 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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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.
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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).
Commissioner Shapiro left the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
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
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, 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.
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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 reguiding. He commented that the
change in land use guide should stand on its own.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about issues occuring if the reguiding 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.
Commissioner Carper asked what size building could be built in the mixed-use portion of the lot
currently.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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 &
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 10
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
Mr. Walther spoke about Excelsior & 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 October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 11
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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 Carlise dated
September 3, 2008, which reflected a number of the concerns expressed by residents at the public
hearing.
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.
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
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 12
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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.
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.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4q) Page 13
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes September 3, 2008
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).
4. Other Business: None
5. Communications
Ms. McMonigal noted that the Planning Commission will meet on September 17th,
October 15, and October 22nd.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4r
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 September 13, 2008 through October 3,
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
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
456.20TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
456.20
186.66BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESA-OK EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CO
186.66
676.40HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
676.40
107.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADAMS, JUDITH
107.25
88.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADDIS, RUBY
88.69
86.59VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESADVANSTAR COMMUNICATIONS
86.59
108.00ANIMAL CONTROL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAFFILIATED EMERGENCY VET SERVI
108.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE
225.00
100.00ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGSALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH
100.00
500.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALL ELEMENTS INC
500.00
12,885.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
1,000.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
13,885.00
319.12SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
319.12
8.67SCHOOL GROUPS CONCESSION SUPPLIESALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU
8.67
3,717.30PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
3,717.30
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,324.48GENERAL REPAIR TIRESAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
1,324.48
57.88GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
213.53PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
155.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
249.68ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
136.33VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
107.55WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
107.54SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,028.01
744.80POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
744.80
623.56INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
623.56
850.02BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
850.02
66.24NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
66.24
189.10GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
189.10
89.90OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
89.90
31.16COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
31.16
150.00SUPERVISORYTRAININGATOM
150.00
606.40GARAGE MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO
606.40
798.75TV PRODUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAVI SYSTEMS INC
798.75
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
102.02INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESB&F FASTENER SUPPLY
102.02
25,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBACKUS, CHRIS
25,000.00
129.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBAGLOO, IRA
129.94
4,420.84GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARGMANN, DAVID
4,420.84
500.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEACH, WILLIAM & JULIE
500.00
298.91TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCEBECK, GEORGE
298.91
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBECKER, DONALD
142.31
178.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBENSON, JANET
178.06
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBERGQUIST, ROGENE
140.25
89.10ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBERLIN, NANCY
89.10
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBIERMA, SHIRLEY
86.63
66.00GROUP ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REVENUEBIG LAKE KIDS CLUB
66.00
159.98POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBIKEMASTERS
159.98
1,539.07-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBIT TECH INSTALLATION
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25,217.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
23,677.93
173.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBJORGAARD, DEB
173.44
80.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLIXRUD, ALDEN
80.44
138.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOMQUIST, NAN
138.19
171.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOOM, JAN
171.13
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLOOM, JON
195.25
240.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLUHM, LEONARD & BARBARA
240.00
264.17GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
264.17
1,065.61FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBOHN WELDING INC
40.26PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.00AQUATIC PARK G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,155.87
341.33NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBONGAARTS, JOANNE
341.33
25.53ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBONSTROM, ARNOLD
25.53
168.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBOTNER, LOREN
168.81
241.34POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
19.88POLICE G & A POSTAGE
261.22
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
307.02GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS
307.02
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRATLAND, ROSEMOND
144.38
1,157.20GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,157.20
284.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBREHMER, DAVID
284.44
85.20ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBRENTS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS
21.30HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
106.50
273.29TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCEBRIGGS, ANDREA
273.29
606.94GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESBRO TEX INC
545.92WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,152.86
94.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBROKERS CLEARING HOUSE REALTY
94.32
160.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
160.00
523.88PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
523.88
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBUNIK, PETER
148.50
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBURGGRAFF, KATE
142.31
705.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSCALHOUN TOWERS APTS
705.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
83.07IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
41.54TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
124.61
7,559.05ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
719.39WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
8,278.44
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCANNON, GLENICE
74.25
439.36PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTCANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
439.36
40.50INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALCAREY, JAY
40.50
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCARLSON, LAWRENCE
123.75
951.60DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
951.60
3,639.35INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCARVER, CITY OF
3,639.35
241.79OPERATIONSTRAININGCDW GOVERNMENT INC
3,372.13DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,613.92
309.43FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
18,397.00ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
18,706.43
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCHAMBERLAIN, CYNTHIA
144.38
32.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCHOICEPOINT SERVICES INC
32.00
200.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCHRISTENSEN, MARY LOU
200.13
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
288.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHURCHILL, LEE
288.00
22.47-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
6.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
547.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.45ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
295.00ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
340.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
280.37ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
14.95ADMINISTRATION G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
18.78HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
597.32HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
259.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
16.06HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
81.06COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
114.00HUMAN RIGHTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.40IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
221.15DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
259.95APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
60.28NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONS
2.57NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
480.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
225.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
6.19FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
253.99GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
3.28POLICE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
200.00SUPERVISORYSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
708.72SUPERVISORYTRAVEL/MEETINGS
165.05PATROLTRAINING
163.01OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
241.75OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
241.60OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
240.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,166.64OPERATIONSTRAINING
16.05INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
157.11PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
896.54PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
340.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
20.41-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
949.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
26.65ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
153.37ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SMALL TOOLS
184.90WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
385.99WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
469.67VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
26.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.01VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
626.84VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
15.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
4.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
5.33BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2.67-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
91.78CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1.32CABLE TV G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
47.88TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.68TV PRODUCTION OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5.35EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.32NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
102.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
718.63EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
202.69DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5.42DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
13,719.63
420.00GROUP ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REVENUECLUB CARE
420.00
863.14CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
863.14
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCOEN-PESCH, CARA
78.38
149.95NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
149.95
4,522.61PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
4,522.61
4,036.12PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
4,036.12
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
47,072.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
47,072.50
401.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
401.00
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCOOK, JUDITH
142.31
100.00OPERATIONSTRAININGCOON RAPIDS FIRE DEPARTMENT
100.00
192.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB
192.00
83.71-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
1,162.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
185.52DARE PROGRAM POSTAGE
1,263.81
3,388.00E-911 PROGRAM OFFICE EQUIPMENTCROWN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES INC
3,388.00
52.42GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSCRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC
52.42
326.67POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
10.56ANIMAL CONTROL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
337.23
163.57SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSCUES
163.57
107.03INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
107.03
2,266.32SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,180.02SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
783.84SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,230.18
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
48.17GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
193.55BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
241.72
154.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDEANE, BETTY
154.69
764.34POLICE G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTDELAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVIC
764.34
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDELL, ED
148.50
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDESENS, HELEN
78.38
212.25ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
212.25
33.99POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTDILORENZO, KIRK
321.00PATROLSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
354.99
7.31-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDISPLAYS2GO
119.79GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.48
135.18POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDIXON, DUWAYNE
135.18
601.42PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
226.33PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,673.48AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,501.23
2,805.61PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHINGDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
2,666.72POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
119.53NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,591.86
180.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDRACHE, KAY
180.38
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESDYSTE, CYNTHIA
86.63
2,293.09BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
2,293.09
25,395.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSEGAN OIL CO
25,395.80
29,876.25OFFICE EQUIPMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTELERT & ASSOCIATES
29,876.25
970.26GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
970.26
210.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESENZ, MARY
210.44
923.37PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESEQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEM
923.37
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESERTEL, SHIRLEY
86.63
2,263.01OFFICE EQUIP MTCE OTHERESPRESSO MIDWEST INC
2,263.01
127.35ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEVERS, CAROL
127.35
183.25POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS
31.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE
214.25
214.57PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
214.57
80.54GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFASTENAL COMPANY
188.65PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
269.19
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
177.91PAINTINGBLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFEDEX
5.93SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
183.84
264.23ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
264.23
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFISCHELS, ANGELA
140.25
350.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
350.00
2,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWFLAHERTY, DENNIS
2,000.00
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFLANNIGAN, JANE
400.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
542.31
333.34ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
333.34
25.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFREDERICK, MEIGHAN
25.00
88.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFRENCH, CAROLE
88.69
65.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEFREUND, AMY
65.00
10,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIENDS OF THE ARTS
10,000.00
15,555.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFULL SPRING STUDIO LLC
15,555.00
389.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGARDNER, PETER
389.25
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
496.61EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGARLAND, MIKAEL
496.61
128.85DAMAGE REPAIR OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGEMPLER'S
128.85
1,843.70GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP
1,843.70
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGEORGE, EMILIE
86.63
351.07KICKBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESGLS SPORTS EQUIPMENT EXPERTS
351.07
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGLUCK, TEZE
144.38
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGOLTZMAN, LILLIAN
78.38
972.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
972.10
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGORMLEY, MAUREEN
142.31
350.00EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTGRAFIX SHOPPE
350.00
205.36FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
99.42WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
304.78
1,065.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGREAT LAKES WEATHER SERVICE
1,065.00
600.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGRISIM, LINDA
144.38
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,970.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
3,970.00
195.94ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGROVE, HENRY
195.94
354.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRUENBERG PLUMBING, STEVE
354.00
14,973.96TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEHAINES TREE SERVICE, B J
14,973.96
94.88NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMES, MOLLY
94.88
288.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
288.00
19.67INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHANSBURGER, BRUCE
19.67
7,566.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEHARMON INC
7,566.75
1,024.01AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
13,347.08WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
14,371.09
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHEMMERLE, JOHN
140.25
504.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
504.00
213.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENDRIX, MARY
213.50
372.40NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
1,689.76POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,062.16
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,265.86POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
4,265.86
397.34ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
1,134.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
416.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,973.09
452.21INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
452.21
180.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHINZ, TODD
180.38
259.90PAINTINGBLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
259.90
57.10-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHOFFER'S COATINGS INC
935.50PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
878.40
168.96GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1,191.94GROUNDS MTCE OTHER
21.13PATCHING-PERMANENT GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.28PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLS
143.06DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
217.19PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
54.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,336.39WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
426.53STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
3,614.48
3.15WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
3.15
51.85INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGHOMESURE INC
51.85
50.00ADULT PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHOUGHTON, CAROLINE
50.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
264.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
264.00
88.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
72.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
160.00
15.96PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
9.61FIELDTRIPSGENERAL SUPPLIES
25.57
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUBBARD, FLORENCE
86.63
382.21ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUIRAS, KEN
382.21
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUIRAS, SHIRLEY
123.75
500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHULLETT, CHRISTOPHER
500.00
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHUNTER, YOSEF
142.31
368.20IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
368.20
400.87GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
400.87
1,520.40EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,520.40
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIACONO, JOHN
142.31
325.00SUPERVISORYTRAININGIAPE
325.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
161.97PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS
161.97
463.28WESTWOOD G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
463.28
457.95WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESIMAGETECH SERVICES
457.95
77.80INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGIN-EX DESIGNS & ROOFING
77.80
7.76WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDELCO
7.76
260.93TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
260.93
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESINGRAM, THERESA
78.38
533.98CITY HALL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESINSPEC INC
533.98
694.01GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
694.01
44.99GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
44.99
345.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIPMA-HR
345.00
73.34ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
112.07POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
185.41
111.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGIRON RIVER CONSTRUCTION
111.40
424.18WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSISHKANIAN, SANDRA
424.18
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4.05ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSJACOBS, MICHAEL
4.05
11.49DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
17.79GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.28
300.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJM CONSULTING LTD
300.00
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESJOHANNSEN, PATRICIA
86.63
233.53HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, DICK
233.53
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESJOHNSON, MARY
142.31
276.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
276.00
306.72PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
306.72
88.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKEEDY, JOANNE
88.69
82.45ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
82.45
134.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKERTES, ANNE
134.06
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKESELEY, PAULA
74.25
80.00GROUP ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REVENUEKIDS SAFARI
80.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
169.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKLEINMAN & FADIL SANTOSA, JAN
229.29TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCE
398.42
500.00PE PLANS/SPECS ENGINEERING SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
36,180.00CE INSPECTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
36,680.00
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKOHLER, CAROL
142.31
2.68-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSKOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP
43.91GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
41.23
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKRAUSE, MARGUERITE
140.25
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKREMER, PATRICIA
144.38
100.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSKRUGE-AIR INC
100.93
71.40POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEKRZESOWIAK, SARAH
20.21ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
91.61
55.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSEKUBE, CLARK
55.00
324.53TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCEKUGLER, PRENTICE
324.53
150.00ADULT SOFTBALL PROGRAM REVENUEKURTT, KEVIN
150.00
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKURTZ, J HAMILTON
140.25
216.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKURTZ, KIRSTEN
216.56
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
252.01TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCELAABS, THOMAS
252.01
34.24PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
34.24
314.33PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSLANO EQUIPMENT INC
314.33
200.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLAPRAY, JAMI
200.13
17.66HOUSING REHAB G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLARSEN, KATHY
17.66
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLARSON, DAVID
195.25
35.10SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
958.30BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
993.40
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLARSON, SHARON
144.38
2,381.82EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,381.82
144.46GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
144.46
1,125.00MONITORINGSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
1,125.00
70,313.25UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
20,727.80UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
91,041.05
136.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLEAHY, MICHAEL
136.13
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWLECHELT, MARY & DAVID
1,000.00
146.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLEE, JOAN
146.44
1,313.75PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDILEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES
1,313.75
3,375.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEWIS & ASSOCIATES
3,375.00
43.31POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTLOFFLER COMPANIES
8.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE
51.31
637.39IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
37,949.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICES
888.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
766.80APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
4,100.25NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
44,341.44
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLYKKEN, LAURIE
74.25
4,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWLYNCH, SANDRA
4,000.00
320.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGM A H C O
320.00
104.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
104.28
175.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAGDZIARZ-RAINEY, WILLIAM
175.75
76.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAINELLA, HEATHER
76.31
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAISEL, PAULA
78.38
150.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMALCOMSON, NANETTE
150.31
36.50ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMANGEN, DEB
36.50
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMANUEL, JULIE ANNE
74.25
119.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARBURY, KATHERINE
119.63
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAREK, MARGARET
140.25
190.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARSDEN, RICK
190.38
214.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARTENS, BRENDA
214.50
25.21WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMATHESON-WOLTER, HEIDI
25.21
138.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAYES, NANCY
138.75
164.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMAYNARD, MARY
164.19
111.29PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
111.29
290.06SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCROSSAN INC, C S
25.29PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
315.35
75.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCGINNIS, MEGAN
75.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
146.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMCMILLIN, HAZEL
146.44
80.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMEHA
80.00
91.33PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
30.78INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
30.43PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
10.16PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.85SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.33WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
48.36ICE RESURFACER GENERAL SUPPLIES
759.96WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,096.20
230.16WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMETRO LEAK DETECTION INC
230.16
2,034.15REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
294,271.77OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
296,305.92
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMEYERS, SALLY
140.25
261.87WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMICRO CENTER
261.87
239.62IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
239.62
550.00INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST AQUA CARE
550.00
536.75PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
2,380.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
5,092.29PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,009.04
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
77.74OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS GENERAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
77.74
986.15NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD A
986.15
395.76STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMINING AUGER & TOOL WKS INC
395.76
18.90ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DIST
18.90
1,430.24EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,430.24
21,541.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,541.00
700.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS
700.00
80.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA STATE FIRE MARSHAL
80.00
58.37PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
58.37
227.91WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMINVALCO INC
227.91
20.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
20.00
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMONROE, MYRTLE
144.38
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMONTY, JAMES
750.00
14.29-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMOORE MEDICAL LLC
234.15WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
14.29-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
234.15SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
14.29-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
234.17STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
659.60
51.64GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
1,054.11GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,105.75
400.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMPCA
400.00
399.00ADULT SOFTBALL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMRPA
399.00
172.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
172.56
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMUELLER, CYNTHIA
74.25
179.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMURMAN, JEFFREY
179.44
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNALEZNY, LOIS
144.38
12.76GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
9.98OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
6.79PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
124.59PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
36.53GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
891.62GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
64.28SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,146.55
308.01EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTNELSON LINCOLN MERCURY
308.01
10.04-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSNEP CORP
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
164.46PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
154.42
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNERHEIM, CONSTANCE
140.25
68.10ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
153.53HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
357.01RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
111.92FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
134.49EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
942.20POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
488.42OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
61.10INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
233.77ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
441.35PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
78.76PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
596.03ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
317.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
61.10ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
269.92WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
55.75REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
61.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
363.55WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
112.76SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
41.74SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
4,951.01
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNOEL, MARGE
140.25
30.37AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNORTHERN AIRE SWIMMING POOLS
30.37
403.70WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSNORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
403.70
142.50ENGINEERING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNORTHWEST LASERS INC
142.50
135.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNRPA
135.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
174.20ENGINEERING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOCE
174.20
321.10ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
21.61HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
51.74DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
55.10ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
91.72FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
35.61FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
115.42POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
106.13OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
91.85INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
216.25PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.01PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
58.53ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.01PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
30.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
168.08WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,389.60
131.86NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSOFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG
62.86VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE
4,143.29FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONE
99.84NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
748.79COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
5,186.64
2,396.40INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
2,396.40
39.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOLSON, FERDA
39.19
2,998.15PORTABLE TOILETS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
133.12WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.74NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,307.01
200.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOTTERBLAD, PATRICIA
200.13
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,732.81TREE REPLACEMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESOUT BACK NURSERY
2,732.81
213.51TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCEOWENS, KATHARINE
213.51
380.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC
380.00
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPALM, PATRICIA
144.38
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTPARK NICOLLET CLINIC
330.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
350.00
256.45GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPARTS PLUS
256.45
294.80TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCEPAUZER, CHRIS
294.80
358.82BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
1,488.95BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,847.77
226,731.75CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPEARSON BROTHERS INC
226,731.75
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPELOWITZ, JULIE
74.25
480.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPERSPECTIVES INC.
480.00
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPETERMEIER, JOSIE
86.63
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPETERSON, AMY
750.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9,765.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, BRENT
9,765.00
11.82ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
5.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
50.28ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
42.47ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
21.17HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
17.32HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
20.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
2.81GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.10INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.19CABLE TV G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
7.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
279.39
19.87WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
28.61WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
29.55HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.03
400.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPLANTENBERG, CATHERINE
400.00
150.00CLERICALSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPLEAA
150.00
164.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLOOF, PATRICIA
164.25
175.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLOVNICK, ROSS
175.75
185.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPLUMERI, MARGARET
185.25
7,826.47WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPOINTE WEST TOWNHOMES
7,826.47
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,211.28GENERAL REPAIR TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
3,211.28
359.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
359.80
180.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEPOSTMASTER
180.00
67.28BROCHUREPOSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
526.60WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
526.60SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
526.60SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
526.61STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,173.69
194.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPOSZ, ALBERT
194.25
920.71PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
920.71INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,841.42
144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
80.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
4,451.70PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,531.70
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPROVIDENT REAL ESTATE OPPORTUN
750.00
220.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPUTNAM, WILLIAM
220.00
750.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
750.00
98.57VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
98.57
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
31Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
154.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESQUILLING, SHIRLEY
154.69
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESQUINN, CLARA JANE
78.38
645.87FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONEQWEST
55.41NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
110.82COP SHOP TELEPHONE
2,026.77COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
18.18E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
2,857.05
47.60ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESR & R SPECIALTIES
47.60
4,490.09TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICERAINBOW TREE CARE
3,131.42TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
7,621.51
66.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRAMSPERGER, ANGELA
66.00
157.88WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
157.89SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
157.89SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
157.89STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
631.55
81.78TRAININGTRAININGRARDIN, MICHAEL
81.78
243.36PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREED BUSINESS INFORMATION
243.36PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
486.72
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRHEINHART, ETHEL
86.63
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRICE, MARTHA
86.63
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 32
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
32Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRICHARDS, DAVID
144.38
504.00ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRICHARDSON, TERESA
504.00
4.69-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRICOH CORP
76.84PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
72.15
88.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESROSE, FRED
88.69
85.00SUPERVISORYSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSROTARY CLUB OF SLP
196.00SUPERVISORYMEETING EXPENSE
281.00
218.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRRT PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC
218.02
192.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRUHL, BARBARA
192.81
294.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESA-AG INC
294.45
90.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSAE INTERNATIONAL
90.00
3,239.78CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
3,239.78
360.00GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSANI-MASTERS INC
260.00Graffiti Clean-up OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
620.00
1,729.50H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
1,729.50
128.38HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
128.38
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 33
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
33Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
100.87SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHAEFFER MFG CO
100.87
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHAUB, CAROL
140.25
15,020.49PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
15,020.49
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHMIT, FRANCIS
86.63
195.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHOEN, LOUIS
195.25
103.52ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
103.52
50.37-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSCHWAAB INC
825.32INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
774.95
175.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCULLY, MARYJO
175.75
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEH
308.00
197.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSERRELL, JUDITH
197.69
413.06PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSSEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE
457.95VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
871.01
427.20ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHEEHAN, ALEEAH
427.20
82.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHELTON, RYAN
82.50
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 34
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
34Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
134.67GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
2,370.10PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,504.77
358.69TREE INJECTION PRIVATE TREE MAINTENANCESHIRLEY, TED
358.69
154.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSIEGEL, LOIS
154.69
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSINGH, HARMEET
2,500.00
107.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSKELTON, BONNIE
107.25
181.13ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSLAGER, EUNICE
181.13
1,240.48EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,240.48
189.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSMITH, ESTHER
189.75
750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSMITH, JENNIFER
750.00
432.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, PERRY
432.00
106.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC
106.50
118.60WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSSPS COMPANIES INC
34.42WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
153.02
4,026.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSESSQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE
1,342.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,368.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 35
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
35Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,136.44GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
11,095.90PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
620.10PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
8,539.28PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
79,459.76PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,164.86CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
85,065.44CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
189,081.78
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTANCHFIELD, SHERM
140.25
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTANCILE, BEVERLY
86.63
62.92ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, TH
55.19HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.76COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
43.35IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.89ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
73.25FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
114.67COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.17FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
125.46POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
79.69OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
77.18INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
45.37PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
58.05ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.18PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
85.00ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.18PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.66ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.66WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.67REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.17VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.16HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.18WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,244.83EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,271.64
1,050.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTANDARD SIDEWALK INC
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 36
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
36Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,833.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,883.00
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTAPLETON, KRIS
144.38
100.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESSTATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUB
100.00
152.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTEEGE, RICHARD
152.63
40.86OPERATIONSTRAININGSTEMMER, LUKE
40.86
35,000.00GENERAL INFORMATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEP
35,000.00
42.00AQUATIC PARK G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTITCHIN POST
42.00
1,304.18BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSTRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C
1,304.18
383.38GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSTREICHER'S
303.48EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
686.86
64.35ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSTROTH, NANCY
64.35
1,796.90WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISTRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOC INC
1,796.90
251.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTULBERG, JEAN
251.31
21.77GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSUBURBAN CHEVROLET
21.77
15.45-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUMMIT SUPPLY CORP OF COLORADO
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 37
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
37Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
253.07PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
237.62
418.30ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
150.15PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
75.08OPERATIONSLEGAL NOTICES
643.53
40.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATSUSA
40.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
80.00
88.69ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUTLIFF, ELBERT
88.69
1,062.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
818.99MOWINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,880.99
148.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTANICK, PAUL
148.50
241.56ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTAPE, WILLIAM
241.56
42.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
12.98POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
55.55POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
81.40POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
192.68
195.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGTCALMC
195.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
195.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
585.00
94.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
94.00
56.76ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
56.76
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 38
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
38Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
82.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTENNISON, JO
82.50
9,800.00SAMPLINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
9,800.00
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHIESSEN, KATHERINE
142.31
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHORNE, ELIANNA
140.25
75.79INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGTILTON, JOHN
75.79
609.50ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
609.50
906.21CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
2,162.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,575.70SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,644.56
185.57TREE INJECTION PUBLIC TREE MAINTENANCETOLMAN, CATHERINE
185.57
16,720.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITOP LINE ADVERTISING
16,720.00
14,228.47TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICETOP NOTCH TREE CARE
14,228.47
616.53GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSTOWMASTER
616.53
2,850.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
2,850.00
1,750.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTRESERA CONSULTING LLC
1,750.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 39
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
39Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
355.98GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
355.98
74.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTUBERMAN, MARCIA
74.25
142.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTURSICH, ERNEST
142.31
14.38PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
284.40PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
298.78
81.95GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSTWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
81.95
45.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
45.00
165.00POLICE G & A RENTAL OTHERU-SAVE PARK SELF STORAGE
165.00
5,701.44APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTUHL CO INC
5,701.44
244.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
244.50
280.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
280.00
225.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
225.00
52.83VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEUPS STORE
332.59SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
385.42
229.38SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUSA BLUE BOOK
229.38
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 40
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
40Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28.23NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
74.83POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
103.06
8.50-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSUSI EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT SAL
139.28ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
130.78
24.17OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
8.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.25VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.70
1,305,429.93CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
1,305,429.93
3,870.98DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSVERIZON WIRELESS
3,870.98
136.11PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
136.11
699.12ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWALLACE/CARLSON
699.12
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWALTERS, DAVE
140.25
813.42PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT
67,648.52SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
32,242.55SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
14,843.74SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
27,242.96SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
8,534.66SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
151,325.85
1,020.56PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
1,020.56
3,059.83CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
3,059.83
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 41
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
41Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,275.98PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN
4,275.98
1,088.03SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
1,088.03
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWEINSTEIN, JOAN
140.25
144.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWEINSTEIN, SHELDON
144.38
850.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSEWHITE, PERRY
850.00
290.31ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWICKERSHAM, MARY
290.31
146.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWIEDMAN, MARY
146.44
534.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
534.50
178.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWILLIAMS, MICHAEL
178.19
25.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWILS
25.00
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWISELY, SUSAN
140.25
78.38ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWOHLERS, RUTH
78.38
21,241.00WOLFE LAKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE LAKE ASSOCIATION
21,241.00
3,509.00THE WESTWOOD CREW OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE RIDGE ELC
3,509.00
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 42
10/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:40:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
42Page -Council Check Summary
10/03/2008 -09/13/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,624.86PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWOOD CHIP OF PRINCETON INC
3,624.86
10.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWOOD DUCK NEWSGRAM
10.00
68.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWUEBKER, DEBRA
68.06
140.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWYMAN, MICHAEL
140.25
8,916.70FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
20.19OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
21,928.93PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,892.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
20.56BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
88.48WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
45,872.30OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
649.76OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
2,935.64SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
383.65OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
42.77WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
85,751.00
20,487.32NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
20,487.32
1,607.25WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESXO COMMUNICATIONS
1,607.25
140.07AQUATIC PARK G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
140.07
618.77OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYZEP MFG
618.77
Report Totals 3,169,812.79
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 4r)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 43
Meeting Date: October 6, 2008
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for 2009
and set Second Reading for October 20, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees
charged for programs and services called for by ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees must
also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Finance Director has worked with individual
departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the attached
ordinance.
A notice was published informing interested persons of the city’s intent to consider fees. A separate
public hearing will be held to consider rates for water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste collection
utilities.
If approved, the fee increases will be effective January 1, 2009.
FUTURE ITEMS:
Staff is working on a utility rate study and will be presenting proposed new water, sewer, storm
water, and solid waste rates to the City Council in November 2008. These rates have been
determined not to be fees as established by state statute requirements and Ordinance 2324-06, so
they are now adopted by resolution annually.
Fees associated with rental property licenses will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed
revisions of rental licensing to include townhome and condominium units. Inspections will
review the entire program costs for service based on staffing requirements at the time of
proposing the ordinance amendments and set fees with the ordinance adoption in late October.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Each Department Director has reviewed Appendix A of the City Code. Police, Information
Resources and Community Development are recommending no increase in their fees for 2009.
Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases cover increased costs of service and inflation costs.
Chapter 3 – Liquor Licenses
The city is adjusting fees in this area and the adjustments are in conformance with state law. In
addition, this section was revised to make it easier to follow and to make terms consistent with city
ordinance and state law.
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Regulations
Section 6-68 – This fee has always been in city code but it was not listed in the fee schedule. The
proposal is to charge a flat rate of $220 for commercial and $150 for residential demolition permits.
Refundable deposits are proposed to be $5,000 for commercial and $2,500 for residential. If any
damage occurs to city property during the demolition of the building(s), the city can draw from that
deposit to cover any expenditure related to restoration of city property.
Section 6-177 - Multi-family residential property (apartments) is currently considered commercial
property and square footage is used for determining fees. The new fee, as proposed, creates a
category specifically for apartment buildings based on the number of units instead of basing the fee
on building square footage. The proposed fees are $250 per building and $12 per unit. This fee will
more accurately reflect the cost of conducting these inspections.
Chapter 8 – Business Licensing
Section 8-326 - This is a housekeeping item. License fees for multiple family apartments have been
moved from section 8-33 General License Fees, into the more specific 8-326 with other rental
license fees.
Chapter 24 – Streets, sidewalks and other public places
Public Works is proposing a new $50 administrative fee for all permits in the right-of-way and for
installation/repair of sidewalks, curb and gutters. Fees for holes in the roadway and for curbs were
reduced to make the fees more equitable. Although the administrative fee for permits is new, it is
balanced by the $50 reduction of fees for holes in the right-of-way.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manger/HR Director
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
ORDINANCE NO. ______-08
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set
by this ordinance for calendar year 2009.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the City
Code and shall replace those fees adopted November 5, 2007 by Ordinance # 2345-07 which is
hereby rescinded.
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1-14 Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar
Year
add $10 to previous fine
CHAPTER 3: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
3-59 Liquor License
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $100
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $100
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee $280
per M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c)
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
Intoxicating on-sale On-sale
Intoxicating Liquor
$7,500
Sunday Sale On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 – 200 $300
201 – 500 $500
501 – 1000 $650
1001 – 2000 $800
2001 – 4000 $1,000
4001 – 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Wine $2,000
Intoxicating off-sale $200
Temporary (On & Off sale) On-sale
Liquor
$50/day
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
Investigation Fees
New License Investigation Applicant
(non-refundable)
$1,000
Store Mgr Investigation New Store
Manager
$250 $500
On-sale license renewal per M.S.
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
CHAPTER 4: ANIMALS
4-88 Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $20
2nd offense w/in year $30
3rd offense w/in year $40
4th offense w/in year $60
Boarding per day $10
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS & REGULATIONS
6-32, 6-67 Plan Review
Building Permits
Repetitive building
65% of Permit Fee
25% of Permit Fee for duplicate structure
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer and Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
6-32 Building and Fire Protection Permits
Valuation Base Fee Plus For Each Additional
(or fraction thereof)
Up to $500.00 $35.50 $42.25 -
$500.01 to $2,000.00 $35.50 $42.25 $2.25 $1.80 $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $69.25 $14.00 $1000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $391.25 $10.10 $1000 over
$25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $643.75 $7.00 $1000 over
$50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $993.75 $5.60 $1000 over
$100,000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 $4.75 $1000 over
$500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up $5,608.75 $4.25 $1000 over
$1,000,000.01
6-32 Electrical permit
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
Installation, replacement, repair $40 $42.50+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single family: one appliance $40 $42.50
Installation of traffic signals per
location
$150
6-32 Mechanical Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 $42.50+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or
furnace/AC
$55 $60.00
Install single fuel burning appliance
with piping
$55 $60.00
Install, replace or repair single
mechanical appliance
$40 $42.50
6-32 Plumbing Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 $42.50+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $40 $42.50
6-32 Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, replacement, repair $40 $42.50+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace sewer or water service $40 $42.50
6-32 Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75
6-35 After Hours Inspections $50 $55 per hour (minimum 2 hrs)
6-68 Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory
Structures
$2500
All Other Buildings $5000
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory
Structures
$150
All Other Buildings $220
6-69 Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed
after building occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250 $270
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400 $420
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600 $620
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft
above 200,000 sq. ft
$800 $820
$1,000 $1020
$1,200 $1220
6-69 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50
6-103 Building Moving $500
6-177 Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Single Family Dwellings $195 $200
Duplex (2 family dwellings) $275 $285
Condominium Unit $115 $120
Multi-family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building +
$12 per unit
All other buildings: Up to
5,000 sq ft
$250 $270
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400 $420
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600 $620
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,001 to 200,000 sq ft
above 200,001 sq ft
$800 $820
$1,000 $1020
$1,200 $1220
6-180 Temporary Certificate of Property
Maintenance
$50
6-213 ISTS Permit (sewage treatment
system install or repair)
$125
CHAPTER 8: BUSINESS LICENSING
8-33 General License Fees
Commercial entertainment $260 $270
Environmental emission $285 $295
Food and Beverage
High + & large grocery store
(25,000 sq. ft. +)
High + small grocery store
(to 25,000 sq. ft.)
$1,180 $1200
$860 $880
Class H $810 $830
Class M $550 $560
Class L $285 $290
Class V - Food vending machine $15
Public Sanitary Facilities
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
Class I $780 $790
Class II $420 $430
Class III $260 $270
Massage Therapy Establishment $285 $295
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $130 $150
Unit Fee $8 $8.25
Rental Housing
Multiple Family Building $145
Multiple Family per Unit $9
Tobacco products & related device sales $475 $485
Vehicle Parking facilities
Parking ramp $135 $140
Enclosed Parking $185 $190
Dog Kennel $135 $140
Billboards $135 per billboard
8-33 Temporary Use Permits
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110
Circuses, Carnival and Amusement
Rides
$260
Petting Zoos $55 $60
Commercial Film Production
Application
$55 $80
8-37 Insurance Requirements
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
8-66 Contractor
Solid Waste $185 $190
Tree Maintenance $65 $80
Mechanical $90
8-67 Exam Fees (Competency)
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal – 3 year Mechanical $20
8-138 Solid Waste – Vehicle Decal $20
8-163 Tree Maintenance & Removal –
Vehicle Decal
$6 $8
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
8-191 License Late fee 20% 25 % of license fee (minimum
$25 $50)
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license
8-192 Transfer of Ownership $60
8-326 Rental Housing License
1 & 2 family rental housing $85 per dwelling unit
Duplex when both units are licensed $135 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family
dwelling units
$15 per unit
Multiple Family $145 per building +
$9 per unit
8-349 Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
8-428 Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $1.50
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per
day
8-514 Temporary Food Service
3+ Days $135 $140
1 – 3 Days $85 $90
Concession - Seasonal $175 $180
Prepackaged food only $40
8-572 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $55 $70
8-602 Dog License
Dog License – 1 year $20
Dog License – 2 year $30
Dog License – 3 year $40
Penalty for no license $40
Interim License $10
8-661 Courtesy bench $40 per bench
CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENT
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 9
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
12-1 Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (Used equipment valued as
new)
$50 +1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of Permit Fee
12-1 Public Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-2 Private Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-131 Noise
Temporary Permit $55
CHAPTER 14: FIRE
14-103 Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
14-104 Service Fee for fully-equipped and
staffed vehicles
$440 $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$285 $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$155 $255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $85 $100 per hour
CHAPTER 16: LAW ENFORCEMENT
16-34 Criminal Background Investigation
(Volunteers & Employees)
$5
16-35 Administrative fee in certain vehicle
forfeiture cases
$250
CHAPTER 18: OFFENSES & MISC PROVISIONS
18-153 False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $90
Late payment fee 10%
CHAPTER 20: PARKS AND RECREATION
20-6 Permit Fee Off-Leash Dog areas $25 St. Louis Park Resident
$50 Non-Resident
CHAPTER 21: PLANNING
21-33 Official Map Amendment $500
CHAPTER 24: STREETS, SIDEWALKS & OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
24-92 Record deed transfer with Hennepin
County
$120 + Recording cost
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 10
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
24-122 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300
24-153 Installation/repair of sidewalk, curb
cut or curb and gutter
$100 per 100 linear feet (minimum $100)
$10 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
24-251 Work in Public Right of Way
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than
10” diameter)
$100 each
$50 per hole
Trenching in Roadway
Trenching in Boulevard
$400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
CHAPTER 26: SUBDIVISIONS
26-42 Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $500 plus $50 per lot
Final Plat $300
Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot
Exempt and Admin Subdivision $300
26-158
Subdivision Dedication Fee
Park Land Dedication Fee
Multifamily dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Commercial/Industrial properties 5 percent of current market value of the
unimproved land as determined by the city
assessor
Trails
$225 per residential dwelling unit
CHAPTER 30: TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
30-44 Permit to exceed vehicle weight
limitations
$30 each
30-158 Snowfall parking permit
No off-street parking available No charge
Off street parking available $125
Caregiver parking $25
30-160 Permit parking No charge
CHAPTER 36: ZONING
36-33 Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Major Amendment $1,000
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 11
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
Minor Amendment $750
36-33 Variances
Residential $300
Commercial $500
36-33, 36-
36
Special Permit
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $750
36-34 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
36-34 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
36-34 Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
36-34 Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
36-34 Time Extension $75
36-80 Erosion Control Plan
Application and Review $150
36-81 Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $105 $110 per caliper
inch
36-162 Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
36-339 Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
36-361 Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
36-362 Sign Permit
Installation of permanent sign $75
Installation of permanent sign w/
footing inspection
$100
Erection of Temporary sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, construction $30
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item 6a) Page 12
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2009 Fees
sign 40+ ft
36-364 Fence Permit
Installation $15
36-367 Planned Unit Developments
Preliminary PUD $1,500
Final PUD $1,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250
PUD – Major Amendment $1,000
PUD – Minor Amendment $750
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2009.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 20, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: October 6, 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 Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance Relating relating to Towers and Antennas and to set
Second Reading for October 20, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the ordinance be amended to add specific height limits by Conditional Use Permits and to
add provisions related to aesthetics and neighborhood impacts?
BACKGROUND:
Council Action:
On August 18, 2008 the City Council discussed the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
provisions for communication towers. The City Council asked Staff to provide some alternatives to
the proposed zoning changes, including flexibility in the industrial zoning district. Alternatives were
presented to the Council at a study session on September 8, 2008. The City Council directed staff
to make revisions to the ordinance to specify new height limitations for towers, to require
Conditional Use Permits for taller towers, and to add regulations relating to aesthetics and impacts
on surrounding properties.
Summary of Proposed Amendment:
The following is a summary of certain performance standards discussed by the Council at previous
meetings. The proposed ordinance is attached to this report for your review. In addition to the
proposed tower ordinance, it is important to point out that other factors relating to the land, besides
the proposed ordinance, affect where a tower can be located on a parcel. Other restricting factors
include floodplains, wetlands, access, and soil contamination.
Interference:
Interference is regulated and enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
following language is proposed to safeguard public safety related communications:
Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. The placement, design, use and
operation of the telecommunications facilities shall comply with the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. The applicant shall
provide to the City a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing non-
interference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non-interference.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
Height:
The proposed height limits are consistent with those currently in place. In the proposed ordinance,
each district has a maximum height that is Permitted with Conditions, which requires administrative
review only. In addition to this, each district allows the height of the tower to be increased by CUP.
The maximum height allowed by CUP is established in each zoning district. The following table
shows the current and proposed height limits, and the manner in which they are reviewed by zoning
districts.
Current Proposed
POS - Park and Open Space
Permitted
CUP
Accessory
n/a
n/a
permitted
45’
70’
SF – Single family
Permitted
CUP
45’
68’
45’
70’
MF – Multi-family
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
70’
150’
COM – Commercial
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
112’
168’
OFF – Office
Permitted
CUP
360’
540’
200’
400’
IND – Industrial
Permitted
CUP
112’
168’
200’
400’
MX-Mixed Use
Permitted
CUP
n/a
n/a
75
150
Setbacks:
Currently, towers are required to be setback 1.5 times the collapse radius from property lines and
twice the height from property lines adjacent to properties zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3. The proposed
ordinance requires towers to be setback a distance equal to its height from all property lines. The
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
current requirement that they be setback twice the height of the tower is not included in the
proposed ordinance. The proposed language is as follows:
Towers exceeding 70 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the tower height from
all property lines and buildings not accessory to the tower. Towers 70 feet and less shall be
setback a distance equal to 1.5 times the structurally engineered collapse radius from all
property lines.
Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the
following exceptions:
a. In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed between the building and the side
lot line abutting a street.
b. On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed between the
building and either the side lot line abutting a street or the rear lot line.
Aesthetics/neighborhood impact:
Several provisions are proposed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and aesthetics of the
subject property and surrounding properties. Some provisions are specific performance standards
such as limiting one tower per parcel, setting a maximum height and minimum setback, prohibiting
attachments to towers such as signs, limits on lighting and co-locating. Other provisions are general
in nature, allowing the City to evaluate the neighborhood and environmental conditions specific to a
tower proposal. For example, the following is included as a condition in the CUP provision located
in each zoning district:
Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Additional provisions are included in the proposed tower section, such as:
Associated Equipment. Ground equipment associated with a tower or communications
facility shall be housed in a building. The building shall meet the architectural design
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of
the underlying zoning district.
Antenna designs and mounts shall be designed to minimize visual impact.
All building-mounted equipment shall be consistent with the architectural features of the
building and be painted to match the color of the building exterior, roof or sky, whichever is
most effective, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Co-locating:
The proposed ordinance encourages co-locating on existing towers and buildings by requiring the
applicant to prove to the city that there are no other towers or buildings in the area that can
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
accommodate the tower due primarily to available space, structural integrity and required height.
The proposed language is as follows:
A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the applicant shows that the
antennas planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or
building.
For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
Lighting:
The proposed ordinance prohibits illumination of the tower, with the exception of lighting required
by the FCC, and co-locating parking lot and ball field lights. The proposed language is as follows:
Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display
strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into the approved
design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas
may be attached to the tower.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
ORDINANCE NO.___-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 142, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 193, 194,
223, 243, 244, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 368
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 08-23-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 142, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
193, 194, 223, 243, 244, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 368 are amended by deleting striken language
and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
***
Height-Ground Mounted Tower and Antennas. The height of a tower and antenna shall be
determined by measuring the vertical distance from the point of contact with the ground of the
tower to the highest point of the tower, including all antennas and other attachments.
Height-Roof Mounted Tower and Antennas The height of a tower and antenna shall be determined
by measuring the vertical distance from the point of contact with the structure to which it is attached
to the highest point of the tower, including all antennas and other attachments.
***
Sec. 36-78. Height limitations.
(a) Height limitations set forth elsewhere in this ordinance shall be increased by 50 percent
when applied to the following structures:
(1) Art objects in non-residential districts and accessory to permitted principal non-
residential uses (churches, schools, parks, etc.) in residential districts.
(Ord. No. 2255-03, 11-3-03)
(2) Belfries.
(3) Chimneys.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(4) Church spires.
(5) Communication towers. Heights in excess of those allowed under this section shall
be permitted only by conditional use permit granted by resolution of the city council
determining that such structure would not be dangerous and would not adversely
affect adjoining or adjacent property. This determination will be made based on the
following conditions:
a. Distance from abutting residential property.
b. Tower design and collapse radius.
c. .Aesthetic considerations such as color and design.
[Renumber accordingly]
(6) Cooling towers.
(7) Cupolas and domes which do not add additional floor area.
(8) Elevator penthouses.
(9) Fire and hose towers.
(10) Flagpoles.
(11) Monuments.
(12) Observation towers.
(13) Smokestacks.
(b) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the limiting height of the building.
(c) Water towers are exempt from height limitations.
***
Sec. 36-142. Descriptions
***
(c.) Institutional Use.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(1) Antenna means any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting
electromagnetic waves through the air, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as
panels, microwaves dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whip
antennas. For purposes of this Section, “antenna” does not include antennas used for the private
enjoyment of those on the premises where it is located, such as antennas receiving television signals
for viewing on site.
(2) Communication tower means a free-standing tower structure which supports one or more
antennae, including antennae used for private enjoyment of those on the premises where it is
located, for broadcasting, receiving or relaying waves or signals through the air; including accessory
uses directly related to those activities. The tower and antennae heights result in negative visual and
sight line impacts.
***
[Renumber accordingly]
***
Sec. 36-151. POS park and open space district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(2) Communication towers that are 45 feet or less in height. The towers are subject to Section
368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any POS district shall
be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all general conditions provided in section 36-365 and with the specific conditions
imposed in this subsection.
(1) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, with
the following conditions:
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
(e) (d) Accessory uses.
***
(3) Communication tower
***
(f) (e) Dimensional standards/densities.
***
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(9) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height.
a. Sign shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 45 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(5) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
(9) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 45 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(3) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(10) Communication towers . The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 52.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(4) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
***
Sec. 36-166. R-4 multiple-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(11) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 70 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 60 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(9) Communication towers more than 70 feet in height but not to exceed 150 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-167. RC high-density multiple-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(11) Communication towers . The conditions are as follows: that are 70 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(6) Communication towers more than 70 feet in height but not to exceed 150 feet in height.
a. The towers a are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(21) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 112 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. The tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
b. The tower structures shall be a maximum of 52.5 feet high.
c. The tower structure shall not be permitted within any required yard.
d. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
h. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Conditional uses. Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(9) Communication towers more than 112 feet in height but not to exceed 168 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(20) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 112 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. The tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
b. The tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
c. The tower structure shall not be permitted within any required yard.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
d. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
h. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(15) Communication towers more than 112 feet in height but not to exceed 168 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-223. O Office district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(17) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 200 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Communication towers shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to
minimize visual impacts.
b. Communication towers shall be limited in height to 360 feet.
c. Communication towers shall not be permitted within any required yard.
d. No freestanding communication tower shall be located within 1 1/2 times its collapse
radius from any property line.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. If a tower exceeds 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that the desired
result cannot be achieved by piggybacking the proposed antenna on another existing
tower or building.
g. The owner shall permit joint use of any tower exceeding 50 feet in height.
h. Any tower exceeding 50 feet in height shall bc located at a distance of at least 1.5
times its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(10) Communication towers more than 200 feet in height but not to exceed 400 feet in height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(4) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 200 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(5) Communication towers more than 200 feet in height but not to exceed 400 feet in height.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(8) Communication towers. The conditions are as follows: that are 200 feet or less in height.
The towers are subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c . Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its
collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or
building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum
of twice its height from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(4) Communication towers that are more than 200 feet in height but not to exceed 400 feet in
height.
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
***
DIVISION 8. M-X MIXED USE DISTRICT
***
Section 36-263. Uses permitted with conditions
(1) General cConditions for mixed use development are as follows:
a. (1) The development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan land use designations
for the area.
b. (2) The development is in conformance with a redevelopment plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the comprehensive plan.
c. (3) The development conforms with all performance standards of this district or an adopted
overlay district for the area unless certain standards are specifically waived or amended by
the adopted redevelopment plan.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-8C)
(2) Communication towers that are 75 feet or less in height. The towers and antennas are
subject to Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
Section 36-264. Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
(1) Communication towers more than 75 feet in height but not to exceed 150 feet in height.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
a. The towers are subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and
Antennas).
b. Towers shall not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and surrounding
neighborhoods. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to tower design,
appearance, visibility, aesthetic and environmental effects on the adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Sec. 36-264 265. Uses permitted by PUD.
***
Sec. 36-265 266. Accessory uses.
***
(3) Parking lots designed in accordance with section 36-361 except that the number of
required spaces may be reduced as provided in subsection 36-266267(6).
***
Sec. 36-266 267. Dimensional/performance standards and general requirements.
***
Sec. 36-267268--36-290. Reserved.
***
Sec. 36-368. Communication towers (towers) and antennas.
(a) Purpose. To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while
protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community:
(1) To minimize adverse impacts on properties in close proximity;
(2) To minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting
standards;
(3) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through
structural standards and setback requirements; and,
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(4) To maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate
new antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the
community.
(b) Zoning compliance. Towers and antennas are allowed as provided in each zoning district
and must be in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(c) Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. The placement, design, use and
operation of the telecommunications facilities shall comply with the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. The applicant shall
provide to the City a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing non-
interference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non-interference.
(d) Co-Location Requirements.
(1) A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the applicant shows that the
antennas planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing
tower or building.
(2) For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
(e) Tower Setbacks.
(1) Towers exceeding 70 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the tower
height from all property lines and buildings not accessory to the tower. Towers 70
feet and less shall be setback a distance equal to 1.5 times the structurally engineered
collapse radius from all property lines.
(2) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with
the following exceptions:
a. In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed between the building and the
side lot line abutting a street.
b. On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed between the
building and either the side lot line abutting a street or the rear lot line.
(f) Location specific regulations for towers and antennas.
(1) Towers in Residential Zoning Districts.
a. No more than one tower is allowed per parcel. Towers located on parcels
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
occupied by residential dwellings are only allowed in the rear yard.
b. Towers supporting commercial antennas shall be allowed only on government,
school, utility, religious and institutional sites.
(2) Antennas in the Public Right-of-Way. Antennas may co-locate on existing poles or
towers in the City, County, or State right-of-way within any zoning district. A City
Public Works permit for private uses in the public right-of-way and written
permission from applicable jurisdictions are required.
(3) Towers shall not be allowed in:
a. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetlands and Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) jurisdiction wetlands.
b. Land located within the floodplain, flood fringe and floodway districts.
(g) Tower and Antenna Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers and antennas
shall meet the following design requirements.
(1) Towers up to 120 feet in height shall be of a monopole type.
(2) Antenna designs and mounts shall be designed to minimize visual impact.
(3) Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not
display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal
Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into
the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking
lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower.
(4) Signs, Advertising and Display. The use of any portion of a tower for displaying
flags and/or signs, other than warning or equipment information signs, is prohibited.
(5) Associated Equipment. Ground equipment associated with a tower or
communications facility shall be housed in a building. The building shall meet the
architectural design standards of the Zoning Ordinance , and shall meet the
minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(h) Tower Construction and Maintenance Requirements.
(1) Construction Requirements. All antennae and towers erected, constructed, or
located within the City shall obtain a building permit and every tower affixed to the
ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized
persons.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(2) Maintenance. Tower and antenna finish and paint shall be maintained in good
condition, free from rust, graffiti, peeling paint, or other blemish.
(i) Building-Mounted Antennas.
(1) Building-mounted antennas and towers shall be no higher than 15 feet above the
highest point of the building or structure.
(2) All building-mounted equipment shall be consistent with the architectural features of
the building and be painted to match the color of the building exterior, roof or sky,
whichever is most effective, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(j) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere in
this Code, Development applications for towers shall include the following supplemental
information:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that:
a. Describes the tower height, width including antennas, and design including a
cross section and elevation; a site plan which demonstrates all building
dimensions and horizontal setbacks of associated equipment, HVAC and
decibels, paving, landscaping, security lighting , and fencing.
b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-
located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas;
c. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can accommodate;
d. Documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with
established public safety telecommunications;
e. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number; and,
f. Includes other information necessary to evaluate the request.
g. Includes the dimensions and expected quality of the existing and proposed
transmission service area.
h. Includes the location, depth of utilities and other land lines connected to the
tower and associated equipment.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 24
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
(2) For all commercial towers, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or
her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in
writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use.
(3) Before the issuance of a conditional use permit and/or building permit, Proof that
the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by Federal Aviation
Administration; and the following supplemental information shall be submitted:
(k) Discontinued or Unused Towers or Portions of Towers. Discontinued or unused towers
or portions of towers shall be removed as follows:
(1) All discontinued or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within
12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is
approved by the Zoning Administrator. A copy of the relevant portions of a signed
lease which requires the applicant to remove the tower and associated facilities upon
cessation of operations at the site shall be submitted at the time of application. In
the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of
operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City
and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 08-23-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council October 20, 2008
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
1570 16th Street West
Case No.: 08-32-PUD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End, subject to
conditions in the resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End?
PROJECT DESRIPTION:
The northeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street has been proposed to be a gourmet
grocery store. This store would be an anchor tenant of The Shops at West End. The retail,
restaurant, and entertainment portions of the project are under construction and expected to open in
September 2009. The applicant is currently negotiating with Roundy’s to lease the site. The site
and store design needs of this potential tenant have become clearer over the past four months, and
Duke Realty and Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate are requesting final approval of the grocery store
site and building plans through the Minor PUD Amendment process.
BACKGROUND:
In April 2008, the City Council approved the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the retail
portion of the West End project. A condition of approval required the proposed grocery store
building and site to have additional review. The focus of the review was to be the building design,
especially the façade treatments on Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street. The City hoped to explore
opportunities to “activate” these building frontages once a tenant was known and the floor plan was
available. Since the April approvals, prospective tenant Roundy’s (Rainbow Foods Fresh) has been
identified and has prepared a floor plan for the building.
PROCESS:
Minor PUD amendments do not require public hearings or notices. Minor PUD amendments
generally require only City Council review and approval, but in this case, the Final PUD approval
also required Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission discussed the plan on
September 17, 2008. Meeting minutes are attached for your review.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
SITE LOCATION:
Photo courtesy of Duke Construction, September 2008
PUD OBJECTIVES
The West End development required a PUD to allow the shopping center use and for certain
modifications from the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit
Development demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the several
objectives. The overall project satisfied these requirements. Staff analysis of the grocery store site
specifically is provided below.
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
Sidewalk connections to the building are provided from 16th Street, within the surface parking
lot, and from 16th Street to the neighboring Homewood Suites hotel site. A plaza along 16th
Street also provides an outdoor gathering space that is proposed to include pedestrian scale
lighting, seating, vending and public art.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
A bus stop along 16th Street will be adjacent to the plaza space and a sidewalk connection is
provided to front door.
3. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD:
The grocery store peak hours do not overlap the peak hours of the surrounding office uses. The
I-394 Joint Task Force reviewed and the City Council approved the West End’s Travel Demand
Management Plan.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
4. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area exceeding minimum requirements:
A plaza is provided on the southeast corner of the grocery store building. The overall
development provides 15.7% of the gross building area for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
(DORA). The minimum requirement is 12% of the gross building area.
5. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The building uses high quality (Class I) materials. The entrance is emphasized on the east
building elevation with glass and massing on the east elevation of the building. The building
entry is oriented to surface parking lot rather than the street(s) and the West End retail to the
south. The plaza will include a public art display (artist and piece selection to be determined
with public participation).
ZONING ANALYSIS:
The scope of this analysis is limited to the new grocery store site. The plan meets Zoning Code
requirements, provided the City approves PUD modifications for landscaping within the parking lot
and for building setbacks.
Zoning Compliance Table (The table analyzes the grocery store site only.)
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use Grocery stores allowed with a
PUD if part of a Shopping
Center in the Office District
Grocery Store as part of a
Shopping Center (with PUD)
Yes
Lot Area 2 acres 4 acres Yes
Height 240 feet, None with PUD Grocery Store: 24 – 31 ft. Yes
Building Materials 60% Class I materials > 60% Class I materials Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.5, None with PUD 0.35 Yes
Ground Floor Area
Ratio
N/A 0.35 Yes
Off-Street Parking 261 stalls (without credit for
shared parking)
212 surface stalls, plus structured
parking across 16th Street
Yes
Bicycle Parking 26 stalls 12 stalls, 14 stalls proof-of-parking Yes
Open Area/DORA 20,909 sq. ft. (12% Land Area) 26,949 sq. ft. (15.7%) Yes
61 trees 187 trees
366 shrubs 729 shrubs
Landscaping
Alternative landscaping Outdoor plaza, public seating,
public art
Yes
Setbacks None Varies Yes
Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Provided Yes
Sidewalks Required along all streets and
building frontages
Provided along all streets and
building frontages
Yes
Refuse handling Full screening required Enclosed, north side of building Yes
Transit service None required Served by routes 9, 604, 649 Yes
Stormwater Required management Provided underground Yes
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
Architectural Design
When reviewing the building design, the City considers building materials, color and texture,
building bulk, general massing, roof treatment, proportion of openings, façade design elements and
variation, windows and openings. Also, the height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials,
colors, textures, major divisions, and proportions of building shall be compatible with that of other
buildings on the site and on adjacent sites.
The April staff report for the West End Final PUD noted, “The grocer building (Building 11) has a
very long wall along Park Place Boulevard. Unlike the rest of the shopping center, this area is does
not have storefront entrances onto Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street. This design needs
improvement to better address pedestrians on the west and south sides. Planning Commission
review and a Minor PUD Amendment will be required for the final design of the grocer building
and site when the tenant for this site prepares its plans.”
The struggle with large, single tenant buildings is to avoid long blank walls and provide transparency
into the building and openings to access the building. The plan has improved, but does not provide
the storefront image, transparency, and building access achieved on the rest of the shopping center
south of 16th Street.
The plan mitigates what would otherwise be a blank wall along Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street
with a variety of applications. It uses varied building heights to accent building corners, provides
building wall deviations and varied canopy treatments to break up the façade. Street trees along Park
Place Boulevard and 16th Street will help soften the appearance of the building, and foundation
plantings will add color and interest for people using the sidewalks.
The majority of the building exterior material is brick, in various colors and accents. Stone veneer
columns provide vertical breaks in the building. Clerestory windows provide visual interest on the
outside and natural light into the store. The plan now provides windows from floor to ceiling at
three locations along Park Place Boulevard, including two building emergency exits. Illuminated
spandrel and translucent glass accent building corners.
The plan also shows backlit translucent panels under the awnings treatments. These panels may
feature food graphics (complementing the grocery store use). However, the applicant is open to the
Planning Commission’s suggestion of having historic photos or public art on the panels, and
changing these panels occasionally (though not more than seasonally).
The main entrance is oriented to the parking lot on the east elevation and is punctuated with varied
building height, a glass curtain wall, storefront windows, and prefinished metal panels. Other
materials used include precast concrete and concrete masonry units. The buildings meets the Class I
exterior material requirements.
The building design does not provide the same level of transparency and activity along Park Place
Boulevard and 16th Street as the buildings to the south. Two factors limited having transparent
windows, displays, and entrances into the building. One factor is that the first floor elevation of the
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
grocery store is two to four feet above the sidewalk grade along Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street.
Another factor is the interior grocery store floor plan, which places dairy coolers, freezers, and service
corridors along the west and south elevations and limits opportunities for desirable views and
practical entries into the building from the street. A secondary revolving door entry/exit is provided
closer to the south side of the surface parking lot.
The applicant proposes programming the space along the southeast corner of the building with
either fixed or moveable food stands or merchandise kiosks to generate activity in the adjacent plaza.
Parking
The overall Final PUD parking plan meets the zoning code requirements by mixing uses and sharing
parking among office and shopping center components. City staff reviewed the peak hours and
characteristics of the parking demand of the various uses (Parking Generation 3rd Edition, Institute
of Transportation Engineers, 2004). In addition, the Developer commissioned Walker Parking
Consultants to study this issue.
The grocery store shares the surface parking lot with three tenants in a separate 6,000 square foot
building. Vehicular access is from 16th Street, though a private drive with public access rights
provides a secondary connection to Wayzata Boulevard through the Homewood Suites hotel site.
The surface parking lot has 212 parking stalls. At peak times, the uses on this lot will rely on
structured parking across the street to meet City Code parking requirements. The distance to the
structured parking is reasonable based on the findings of the West End Retail Project Parking Study
by Walker Parking Consultants.
Cart Storage
There will be five temporary cart collection areas in the parking lot. Overnight cart storage will be
inside the building.
Loading/Service Areas
The number and size of loading areas meet City Code requirements. The plan generally separates
loading/service areas from customer traffic. The loading area is located at the north side of the
grocery store building. A truck-only, right-in only access from Park Place Boulevard provides access
to the loading docks on the north side of the grocery store building.
Landscaping
The plan meets the City Code tree replacement requirement. Looking at the grocery store site
alone, the plan significantly exceeds the minimum tree and shrub plantings, but the overall Final
PUD relies on these additional plantings and the alternative landscaping in the plaza area to meet
zoning code requirements. The plan also meets the surface parking lot landscaped island
requirements.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
Signs
The applicant submitted a draft sign plan for the site that will require further review and separate
sign permit application. The plan shows a multitenant sign on the northeast corner of the site along
Park Place Boulevard. The plan does not yet detail proposed tenant wall signs.
Utilities
A condition of the Final PUD is that all utilities are placed underground. This includes utility
service structures, such as electrical boxes, unless they are located inconspicuously and screened
entirely. There must be close coordination with small utility companies on the placement, screening
and burying of these structures to maintain the high aesthetic quality of the streetscape and
development. The plan includes locations for City fiber optic lines and meets the City’s needs.
There are two transformers that are above ground and unavoidable. Both are not inconspicuous
from public roads, but not the private parking lot. Staff finds the utility plan meets the ordinance
requirements.
Refuse Handling
Waste enclosures related to the grocery store are on the north side of the building adjacent the
loading area. Refuse containers will be fully screened and not visible from public roads.
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The overall Final PUD approval in April 2008 allowed the existing office towers exceed Intensity
Classification 6 and allows more than one principal use and building on Lot 4, Block 1 (grocery
store site) and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 of WEST END addition. The overall Final PUD included
modifications for setbacks, parking and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). These
modifications are described below.
Setbacks
Buildings do not have to be set back from the property line in a PUD. The developer is placing
buildings very near the road right-of-way to achieve an urban image. Generally, the building walls
are at least five feet from the property lines; however, in some cases the building foundations will
abut the right-of-way. A blanket waiver of the building setback requirements is necessary and
recommended.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plans exceed the DORA requirements. Included in the PUD modifications is the use of indoor
gathering spaces (the retail and office atriums).
Parking
The parking requirement is being modified by 14% from 4,318 spaces to 3,715 spaces. This
reduction is justified based on shared parking by a mix of uses with varying peak hour demands, as
described in the West End Retail Project Parking Study by Walker Parking Consultants.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
NEXT STEPS:
If approved, the applicant will proceed to the building permit application and construction of the
grocery store.
Attachments:
Resolution
Planning Commission Unofficial Meeting Minutes from September 17, 2008
Building Sketches/Images (updated drawings will be provided in staff presentation)
Site Layout Plan
Utility Plan
Landscape Plan
Building 11 – Overall Plan
Building 11 – Plan, Area 1 (north side)
Building 11 – Plan, Area 2 (south side)
Building 11 – Exterior Elevations
Multi-tenant Sign Information
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
RESOLUTION NO.__________
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 08-057
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION
NO. 08-057 ADOPTED ON APRIL 28, 2008 APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE
CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A GROCERY STORE FOR PROPERTY
ZONED O-OFFICE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF
HIGHWAYS 394 AND 100
The West End Redevelopment Project
WHEREAS, Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate have made application to
the City Council for a Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance code to allow a grocery store at 1570 16th Street West within the O – Office Zoning
District having the following legal description:
Lot 4, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END; Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission discussion and comments (Case No. 08-
32-PUD) and the effect of the proposed grocery store on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area
and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-057 of
the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 28, 2008 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the
amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by
Resolution No. 08-057, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject
property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 08-32-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 08-057 (document not filed) is hereby restated
and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property
for the purpose of permitting a grocery store within the O-Office Zoning District at the location described above based
on the following conditions:
1. The uses on the subject property are limited to retail, service, restaurants, hotel, theater, and office. The
following uses are not allowed: in-vehicle sales and service (drive-through); motor fuel stations; motor vehicle
sales, service and repair; car washes; currency exchanges; check cashing; pay loan agencies; pawnshops; sexually-
oriented businesses, tattoo shops; gun shops (not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of its
sporting goods inventory, guns and ammunition).
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
2. The final site plan and façade design of the large retail building on Lot 4, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST
END (proposed grocery store) shall require a PUD Minor Amendment with review by the Planning
Commission.
3. The hotel site plans for Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END shall require a PUD Major
Amendment if any variances are requested. If the plan does not require a variance, the application may be
processed as a PUD Minor Amendment and include review and recommendation of the Planning Commission.
4. The total gross floor area of restaurants shall be limited to 82,277 square feet.
5. The total number of seats in the movie theater shall be limited to 2,700 seats.
6. Tenants in Building 32 shall be limited to Mercantile (Group M) uses as defined in the 2007 Minnesota State
Building Code, such as retail or wholesale stores, sales rooms, department stores, drug stores, markets, etc.
7. The portion of the five-level retail parking structure (Building 35) that is within 20 feet of the Gamble Drive
right-of-way shall have a minimum of 60% Class I exterior materials. The Developer shall amend the Official
Exhibits to comply with this requirement.
8. The Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator or their designee(s) may approve individual
tenant/building façade designs administratively or refer proposals to the Planning Commission and City
Council for consideration, as City staff deems necessary.
9. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator review and approval.
Sign permits are required.
10. Access to the truck courts on the west retail block from Park Place Boulevard shall be limited to between 8 p.m.
and 10 a.m.
11. The access will be controlled from Park Place Boulevard to the truck courts on the west retail block using a
mechanical bollard system and directional signs in the Park Place Boulevard right-of-way. The Developer shall
enter into a Planning Development Contract with the City of St. Louis Park that addresses this private use of
public land.
12. The Developer shall maintain horizontal separation from landscaping (i.e. boulevard trees) of at least three feet
from shallow underground utilities (i.e. fiber optic cable, private utilities, etc.), and eight feet horizontal
separation from deeper underground utilities (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, etc.).
13. Tree plantings and street furnishings shall be located in a manner that maintains at least six feet wide clearance
space in all boulevard/sidewalk areas for snow removal.
14. The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits (The Shops at West End Design Guidelines) to incorporate
the following:
a. At pedestrian level, facades on Buildings 12, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32 and 33 shall be primarily
transparent:
1. At least 60% of facades between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation shall
consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail,
offices, gallery or lobby space. The West End Tenant Design Guidelines shall illustrate
the portions of the above referenced buildings subject to this requirement.
2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum of three feet, but display of
merchandise in this space is allowed. Display windows may be used to meet the
transparency requirement.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
b. At pedestrian level (between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation), building facades facing
public streets, West End Boulevard, or the pedestrian arcade shall have no more than 10% of the
total window area be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass.
c. No more than 10% of the total window area of any building façade shall have signs applied to the
inside or outside surface of the window. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear
or slightly tinted glass that allows views into and out of the building.
d. Tenants in Buildings 12, 22, 24, 31, and 33 that are located adjacent to public
and/or private street intersections shall locate entrances at or near the adjacent
building corner.
e. Awnings and canopies shall be made of heavy canvas, fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl
awnings are prohibited. Backlit awnings and canopies are prohibited.
15. A business may use the sidewalk within five feet of its building wall for the following purposes, provided the
business maintains a clear walkway that is at least eight feet wide along Park Place Boulevard and at least six feet
wide along other streets, and provided the uses do not occur in the public right-of-way:
a. Display of merchandise, not to exceed 100 square feet per business;
b. Benches, planters, ornaments, art;
c. Signs permitted in the zoning ordinance; and
d. Outdoor dining. Outdoor dining areas may extend farther than five-feet from the building wall,
provided table and chairs or other obstructions are not in the public right-of-way, and provided
businesses maintain the required horizontal clearance for a walkway between the dining area and other
obstructions, such as trees, poles, and curbs.
16. The Developer shall provide easements and $285,000 for public art to help satisfy the alternative landscaping
requirements. The City and the Developer will develop a public process to select the artists, artworks and
locations.
17. The Developer shall amend Official Exhibits (utility plans) to provide separate domestic and fire water service
lines to the buildings.
18. The developer shall work with the Police Department on the design and construction of the police substation
area in Building 31. In particular, the plan shall provide windows and doorway on the northeast building
elevation along the alley.
19. The developer shall redesign the public restroom entrances in the Building 31 atrium to have open entrances
(no exterior doors to the atrium), similar to typical stadium/movie theater restroom entrances, as requested by
the Police Department.
20. At City of St. Louis Park’s sole discretion, and upon conferring with the property owner, the property owner
shall change the designation of West End Boulevard on-street parking stalls from short-term customer parking
to “pick-up/drop-off only” (or similar restriction).
21. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain all permits from the City and other agencies.
22. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for all parking structures.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
23. Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e. grocery store, hotel, etc.).
24. The property owner shall prepare and effectuate traffic management plans that reduce traffic congestion. The
property owner submitted a plan for review and approval of the by the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley I-394
Joint Task Force. The property owner shall implement The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) approved by the
Travel Demand Management Joint Task Force prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. The City and Developer shall set up a monitoring program to determine actual sanitary sewer flows. Following
each phase of the development, sewer flows will be analyzed to determine if sewer flows exceed Metropolitan
Council limits described in the Metropolitan Council’s letter to the City of St. Louis Park dated December 14,
2006. If sanitary sewer flows exceed said limits, the Developer shall submit a final design of a privately owned,
privately maintained, temporary sanitary sewer peak flow detention facilities for Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) and City of St. Louis Park approval. The Developer shall construct the said
approved system and put it into operation in the timeframe designated by MCES and City of St. Louis Park,
and prior to City issuance of building permits for additional phases.
26. The Developer shall abide by the City’s water use restrictions and follow State of Minnesota requirements for
low-flow structures. After each phase of the redevelopment, water usage shall be monitored. If monitoring
shows use exceeds 90% of peak capacity, the Developer shall cooperate with the City to identify citywide and
project-specific measures to increase water treatment capacity and reduce consumption prior to City issuance of
building permits.
27. The north office tower and operations center at 1551 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST
END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning
Application 86-14-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall
supersede. The following 86-14-SP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan
and Lighting Plan; Exhibit B – Grading Plan; Exhibit C – Utilities Plan; Exhibit D – Landscape Plan; Exhibit
E – Building Elevations; Exhibit F – Basement Floor Level Plan; Exhibit G – Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit H –
Second Floor Plan; and Exhibit I – Typical Floor Plan, as modified by City Development on March 13, 1986.
(The floor plans are included to show general use and configurations only.)
28. The following conditions shall apply to the south office tower at 1600 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END):
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from
Zoning Application 98-42-PUD and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official
Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 98-42-PUD Official Exhibits are incorporated
by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Landscape Plan, Exhibit C – Existing
Survey, Exhibit D – Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit E – Utility Plan,
Exhibit F – East Elevations, Exhibit G – North Elevation, Exhibit H – South Elevation, Exhibit I –
West Elevations, Exhibit J – West Elevation - Parking Ramp, and Exhibit K – Parking Ramp
elevation (south).
b. Parking ramp layouts and site plan shall provide designation of at least 20 bicycle racks and at least 20
carpool spaces in convenient locations.
c. A covenant shall be recorded on the property which specifies that a minimum of 4,000 square
feet of the atrium shall remain in perpetuity as indoor open space and available for general “public”
use. Said interior atrium space shall be designed in an aesthetically pleasing and usable way, with
landscaping, benches, and the like. A detailed atrium plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
d. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are re-authorized:
1. The floor area ratio for the PUD can be 1.57.
2. The setbacks on Gamble Drive for the parking ramp can be 17 feet.
3. Reduced office building setback along Gamble Drive of 96 feet.
29. The Chili’s restaurant site at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END) shall
be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 91-
13-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The
following 91-13-SP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Overall Site Plan,
Exhibit B – Site Plan, Exhibit C – Grading Plan, Exhibit D – Landscape Plan, Exhibit E – Floor Plan, and
Exhibit F and F-1 – Elevations.
30. The Olive Garden restaurant site at 5235 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 1, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END)
shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 93-
9-CUP, 93-34-CUP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD
shall supersede. The following 93-9-CUP and 93-34-CUP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference
herein: Exhibit A-1 – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Utility Plan, Exhibit C-1 – Landscape Plan, and Exhibit D –
Exterior Elevations.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses,
at a minimum:
1. Conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of gathering spaces in the development;
3. Private use of public land
4. Maintenance agreement and/or special service district;
5. Surety in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for Redeveloper Public Improvements
and landscaping; and
6. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract.
b. The Developer shall provide a surety to the City of St. Louis Park in the form of an irrevocable
letter of credit for 1.10 times the estimated Redeveloper Public Improvements costs (as
defined in the Redevelopment Agreement), and 1.25 times the estimated landscaping costs.
c. The property owner shall pay the applicable Traffic Management Administrative Fee.
1. The portion of the shopping center subject to this fee is on Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS
AT WEST END. The total fee of $34,633 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park prior to
City issuance of building permits.
2. Subsequent phases of the PUD (future hotel and office towers) shall pay fifty percent of the
fee upon submission of a Final PUD Amendment application, and the remaining fifty
percent of the fee upon submission of a building permit application, for each respective
development phase.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
32. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 6, 2008 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin
County, Minnesota:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits from
Zoning Application 08-32-PUD, including Exhibits C4B-Site Layout Plan North, C8A-Utility Plan,
C10B-Landscape Street Plan, A11101-Building 11 Overall Plan, A11111-Building 11 Level 1 Area 1,
A111112-Building 11 Level 1 Area 2, A11401-Building 11 Exterior Elevations, such documents
incorporated by reference herein.
b. Overnight cart storage shall be inside the building.
c. The Developer shall continue to work with City staff through a public process to select public art and
the complete plaza design.
d. The Developer shall submit a site plan and programming plan for the plaza area to the City for review
and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
e. The Developer shall submit plans for the proposed graphics on the proposed backlit translucent wall-
mounted panels for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The panels and/or graphics
shall be changed from time to time and at least biennially. The panel may include any mosaic, mural,
painting or graphic art or combination thereof which is professionally applied to the panel that does
not contain any brand name, product name, letters of the alphabet spelling or abbreviating the name
of any product, company, profession or business, or any logo, trademark, trade name, or other
commercial message.
e. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
g. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator review and
approval. Sign permits are required.
h. Approval of Building Permits, which may impose additional requirements.
i. A Planning Development Contract between the Developer and City shall be amended to address, at a
minimum:
1. Amended conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of the plaza gathering space;
4. Temporary uses of the plaza; and
5. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
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.
Adopted by the City Council October 6, 2008
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Reviewed for Administration:
_______________________________
City Manager
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 17, 2008--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Richard
Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of September 3, 2008
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the September
3, 2008 minutes.
Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-2
(Commissioners Morris and Shapiro abstained).
3. Hearings
4. Other Business
A. Minor Amendment to PUD for Grocery Store – The West End
Location: 1570 16th Street West
Applicant: AD West End LLC
Case No: 08-32-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that Minor
Amendments generally need only City Council approval, but in this case, the PUD approval
also required Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission may make a
recommendation to the City Council by motion, but it is not required. Planning
Commission comments and discussion will be considered by staff and the applicant and
forwarded to the City Council.
Mr. Walther reviewed the project background, building facade and site.
David Bader, developer, introduced the development team.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
J.R. Anderson, developer/retail partner, stated he was excited about the grocery use as part of
the project. The grocery use brings a new concept to the marketplace and distinguishes the
development from other lifestyle projects in the greater Minneapolis area. They tried to
enhance the store from an exterior perspective, taking into consideration that it still needed
to operate as a grocery store. Mr. Anderson said they had tried to enliven the space and
bring windows to a pedestrian level. They wanted to create a pedestrian experience and as a
result of that, Roundy’s had agreed to include a revolving door to the plaza and glass at the
corners.
Mike Schmidt, Roundy’s, spoke about how they develop their stores from the neighborhood
perspective. Demographics dictate the kind of store and the kind of presentation they want
to put forth. He stated this is an area for a higher level store. The produce department is the
signature part of the store, with 600-700 items. He further discussed the store details and
services.
Commissioner Carper stated he was disappointed in the façade, especially the façade facing Park
Place Blvd. He said it was a very long length of brick and was very undifferentiated and looked
boring. The façade design would not encourage pedestrians to walk along the street. He
suggested tiles, murals, a water wall, stained glass windows, art or something regarding the
history of St. Louis Park. The windows seemed like the windows at Trader Joe’s, which he
didn’t think was ideal. The windows are boring. He said he thought there is a lot of
opportunity to do things differently. The front of the store could have displays or some shelter.
He went on to say there is an opportunity to look at this again and do something spectacular
rather than using more mundane brick.
Pat Mascia, development team, replied those were all opportunities. He said when they
spoken with staff, some of the issues were clear glass and being able to look through. There
are a lot of possibilities in terms of the panels. Glass has been added where possible. They
had shown renderings of the art on 16th and it could be something reflecting St. Louis Park
and the theme of the development. It is the back of the store. They have to make Park Place
as inviting as possible. It was a great opportunity for art. The renderings were just an
example and it was something they could develop with staff as they move forward.
Chair Robertson spoke about Park Place façade elements which include brick, stone, and
awnings. He stated that is where the stairways are located. He noted there are some playful
elements and it is a big facade.
Mr. Mascia stated the elevation presented a challenge.
Chair Robertson asked if there was an opportunity to have a raised terrace or balcony.
Mr. Mascia replied they were exploring everything they could.
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
Commissioner Morris noted he didn’t see cart corrals and bicycle racks.
Mr. Walther responded that eight cart corrals were planned for the site. They will be curbed
and guttered and separated from nearby parking stalls. They are awaiting the plan including
those items.
Mr. Mascia added there are bicycle racks in the master plan at the grocery site and building
12.
Commissioner Morris envisioned an issue with traffic circulation on the site such as exists at
Home Depot and Costco. He commented there would be a bottleneck where all traffic
would enter and exit on 16th. It seemed constraining. He spoke about the reduction in the
parking requirement and looking at the traffic movement, especially with another building
on site, he envisioned a log jam in the short corridor that services the whole parking lot.
Mr. Walther responded the parking lot was reviewed during the preliminary and final PUD
approval. There were concerns and the developer made adjustments. There are
opportunities for occasional back ups during peak hours.
Commissioner Morris commented specifically at building 12, the parking is stacked into the
main exit aisle and he envisioned problems with people backing out of those stalls. It appeared
to be 12 ½ feet for an interior drive lane.
Mr. Mascia responded all drive lanes were 24 feet. It is a standard parking bay. He stated
there are other entrances.
Chair Robertson asked about exiting to the north across the development.
Mr. Mascia replied that exit was in place. Duke Drive and a service drive are also public
drives where people could exit.
Mr. Walther continued with the staff report and spoke about exterior materials and
landscaping. He said as this is a visible and important project staff wanted to bring it to the
Commission for general comments and reactions.
Chair Robertson stated it was a difficult building type. Architects don’t like to do back ends
of buildings. He said the proposal is better than anything else in town of this nature as far as
not having a backside and he thought it worked. He said he felt the parking is a little tight,
but there was enough exiting. Overall he stated that he liked the project.
Commissioner Morris commented that the plan was good and better than what is normally seen
on commercial development, but there could be some tweaking. He said he thought some of the
elements could be better, especially the displays proposed along the backside of the wall. He
suggested interactive features and more space for art. He would like to see a fall back plan
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Minor Amendment to the Final PUD for West End
should the parking not work, that they have something contingent to control interior traffic, and
possibly predominantly mark the northerly exit. Cart corrals and specific bike rack locations also
need to be in the plan. He suggested vendor carts could be added, as long as they were done in a
nice format.
Commissioner Johnson-Madison believed the project was well done, but could be tweaked as
discussed. The parking would be similar to what they encounter in other areas and drivers
learn to be careful in those settings.
Commissioner Carper said he was disappointed with the plans. They had differentiated the
sides of the building, but it was not particularly inspired. He said there was a lot of
opportunity to improve on this and be more creative. This is a spectacular development.
There are some TIF funds involved and the City deserves something special and he didn’t
think it would add that much to the cost of the building. They would be replacing
expensive brick with some other types of materials that would do the job as well. He liked it
and it was acceptable, but it could be really moved to an “A” level if a few changes were
made.
Chair Robertson agreed he would like to see things a little improved and he would like to see
public art. When there is TIF involved, a little return on the investment is expected. He said
he had to respect that businesses have the right to promote themselves. They want to be wildly
successful and part of that is promoting what they do and how well they do it and the
Commission couldn’t lose site of that.
Commissioner Shapiro stated this is a grocery store building and he had never seen a grocery
store building that included all of the elements of this proposal. They could ask for a lot
more, but he said he thought this was already a lot more than is typical and he liked it.
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 2
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 3
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 4
Meeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 5
1060.002.02 I 29 AUGUST 2008GROCERY IMAGESEAST ELEVATIONPREFINISHED METAL PANELCALYXO STONE VENEER COLUMNS W/ VERTICAL METAL ACCENTSBRICK FACADEREVOLVING DOOR W/ STOREFRONT INFILLPREFINISHED ALUMINUM SUNSHADECLERESTORY WINDOWSBRICK FACADETRANSLUCENT CLERESTORY WIN-DOWS AT CORNERPREFINISHED METAL PANELBACKLIT TRANSLUCENT PANELS W/ FOOD GRAPHICS TO ACTIVATE PEDESTRIAN ZONEBRICK FACADEMeeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 6
1060.002.02 I 29 AUGUST 2008GROCERY IMAGESENTRY PERSPECTIVEGROCERY IMAGESPREFINISHED METAL PANELCALYXO STONE VENEER COLUMNS W/ VERTICAL METAL ACCENTSPREFINISHED ALUMINUM SUNSHADECLERESTORY WINDOWSBRICK FACADE W/ RECESS FORSIGNAGEMeeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 7
1060.002.02 I 29 AUGUST 2008GROCERY IMAGESSOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVETRANSLUCENT CLERESTORY WINDOWSRETAIL CARTSBACKLIT TRANSLUCENT PANELS W/ FOOD GRAPHICS TO ACTIVATE FACADE AT PEDESTRIAN ZONEPREFINISHED ALUMINUM SUNSHADECLERESTORY WINDOWSBRICK FACADE W/ FABRIC AWNINGSREVOLVING DOOR W/ STROREFRONTPREFINISHED METAL PIERSMeeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 8
1060.002.02 I 29 AUGUST 2008GROCERY IMAGESSOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVESPANDREL GLASS TO CREATE A BEACON AT THE CORNERBACKLIT TRANSLUCENT PANELS W/ FOOD GRAPHICS TO ACTIVATE FACADE AT PEDESTRIAN ZONEPREFINISHED ALUMINUM SUNSHADECLERESTORY WINDOWSBRICK FACADE W/ FABRIC AWNINGSPREFINISHED METAL PIERSMeeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 9
1060.002.02 I 29 AUGUST 2008GROCERY IMAGESPREFINISHED METAL PIERSBRICK FACADE W/ FABRIC AWNINGSBACKLIT TRANSLUCENT PANELS W/ FOOD GRAPHICS TO ACTIVATE FACADE AT PEDESTRIAN ZONESTOREFRONT AT EXIT DOORPREFINISHED ALUMINUM SUNSHADECLERESTORY WINDOWSPARK PLACE PERSPECTIVEMeeting of October 6, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minor Amendments to the Final PUD for West EndPage 10