HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/11/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 19, 2007
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes October 8, 2007
3b. Special Study Session Minutes November 5, 2007
3c. Special City Council Minutes November 13, 2007
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.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent
calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move
items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those
items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and Resolution approving the establishment of The West End
Tax Increment Financing District.
Recommended Action:
Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the establishment of
The West End Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No.
1 (a redevelopment district).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Commissions from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First reading of an ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 32: Utilities.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve first reading of proposed ordinance amendment to the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities, and set second reading for December 3,
2007.
8b. Ordinance Eliminating the Tobacco Smoke Testing and Disclosure
Requirements for Licensed Food and Beverage Establishments.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance amendment deleting Section 8-258
(b) in its entirety and set second reading for December 3, 2007.
8c. Preliminary and Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition (2942 Boone Avenue
South).
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Fretham 9th
Addition with a subdivision variance for sidewalks.
8d. Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
related to 3515 Belt Line Blvd. (the EDI site).
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Early Start Agreement between the
City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital.
9. Communications
10. 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.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007
SECTION 4: 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 Council member or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Traffic Study No. 608: Authorize parking restrictions at the entrance to Nelson Park.
4b. Suspend collection of the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling through 2008.
4c. Conveyance of tax forfeit property located at 9429 Frederick Avenue.
4d. Final payment to Olympic Construction for Westdale Park Detention Pond – Project No. 2006-
1300.
4e. Revised: Special assessment for sewer service line repair at 7720 Division Street.
4f. Traffic Study No. 606: Authorize parking restrictions at 3920 Minnetonka Boulevard.
4g. Traffic Study Number 607: Authorize traffic controls at W. 39th Street and Zarthan Avenue and
Cambridge Street and Zarthan Avenue.
4h. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Conservation Agreement.
4i. Change Order No. 4 to Contract 15-07 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard Lift Station (LS) #18
& Force Main (FM) - Project 2005-1200.
4j. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Letter of Commitment.
4k. Change Order No. 1 to Contract 105-07 – Minnetonka Blvd Trail Improvement – Project 2004-
0302.
4l. Amendment No. 3 to Contract 81-05 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard Lift Station (LS) #18
& Force Main (FM) - Project 2005-1200.
4m. Motion to approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2007.
4n. Motion to approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:36 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Loran Paprocki
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Finance
Director (Mr. DeJong), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Inspections
(Mr. Hoffman), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Police Deputy Chief (Mr. DiLorenzo), Fire Chief (Mr.
Stemmer) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
Guest: Greg Anderson, Anderson Builders.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and Council discussed study session agenda planning.
Councilmember Sanger suggested having further discussion on the check cashing businesses and
other sensitive uses within the City and Councilmember Finkelstein suggested some further
discussion on sober houses.
Councilmember Carver asked if the Friends of the Arts would be asking for money at the next
study session. Mr. Harmening stated no, it would be an update.
2. Senior Community Services Dial-A-Ride Program
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger suggested suspending payment, but keeping the $10,000 as a placeholder
for 2008 budget. Ms. Schnitker stated that was staff’s recommendation also. Mayor Jacobs
stated he would like to have further discussion prior to any money being distributed.
There was Council consensus to suspend payment.
3. 2008 Budget
Chief Luse provided an overview of the Police Department’s proposed budget for 2008. There is
an increase in police overtime for next year because judges are requesting that prosecutors and
defense attorneys try to reach some sort of conclusion prior to the court date, which will require
more police attendance at court.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they would be able to sell services to other agencies for use of
the new range. Chief Luse stated most cities have their own range, which was cost efficient.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes October 8, 2007
Councilmember Sanger stated it appeared the Community Outreach Program allocation was
going down. Chief Luse stated it’s just an accounting adjustment. Mr. Harmening stated it is
still budgeted for in the Housing and Rehab Fund. She further stated concern with cameras in
the parks and asked if the public would be advised. Chief Luse stated it would be publicized.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they would see an increase in costs for criminal prosecutors.
Chief stated in the short term they would see a cost increase.
Councilmember Carver asked if the Police Department is seeing any effects with extra officers
being requested for court cases. Chief Luse stated it has just recently started, but he was hoping
with ongoing discussions it would get worked out. Councilmember Carver stated he would like
the judges to know it’s not a cost neutral decision for the City. Chief Luse stated he had been
voicing that in his meetings.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there was a need for more officers. Chief Luse stated that they
were getting the job done at this point.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there were any livability issues with the schools and if the
liaison officers were stretched too thin. Chief Luse stated the needs were being met.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that many items in the police budget are a one-time cost. Mr.
Harmening complimented Chief Luse and his department on how well they are working together
inter-departmentally.
Mayor Jacobs complimented the junior high police liaison, stating he is great with the students
and is making a great difference.
Chief Stemmer provided an overview of the Fire Department’s proposed budget for 2008. Chief
Council and staff had discussion on child car seat installation scenarios.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a way to minimize the number of less than emergency
type calls for service. Chief Stemmer stated there was not.
Councilmember Finkelstein complimented Chief Stemmer and staff on the open house and their
response to the 35W Bridge collapse.
Mr. Hoffman provided an overview of the Inspection Department’s proposed budget for 2008.
Councilmember Carver asked if staff sent out dog license reminders. Mr. Hoffman stated yes
and that residents had the opportunity to pick from a one, two or three year license.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they had recently seen more complaints on homes in distress
and home-based businesses, asking if they had the resources to deal with complaints. Mr.
Hoffman stated staff has seen an increase in complaints and they have increased staff to deal
with those complaints.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes October 8, 2007
4. Proposed Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy; and Redevelopment Contract
with Anderson Builders
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report.
Councilmember Finkelstein complimented staff on their work. He further stated concern that
this type of policy may encourage people to look for assistance, providing unintentional results.
Mr. Hunt stated the policy had a “look-back” provision, which would be effective at any point.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked how they would know it the request met the criteria. Mr.
Hunt stated there is a gap that the lender is unable to fill, stating this type of program would be
the last resort.
Councilmember Basill reminded Council it would still be their decision on a case-by-case
request. He further stated it wouldn’t commit or lock them into other requests. Mr. Hunt stated
it wouldn’t mean the applicant would automatically get the funding requested.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the policy was focused on new construction versus existing.
Mr. Hunt stated the idea was to reinvest in existing property. Councilmember Sanger asked if
there would be a repayment interest rate. Mr. Hunt stated it would be whatever was negotiated
to make the project work. Councilmember Sanger asked if a lien could be put on the property.
Mr. Harmening stated you could, depending if it were a grant or loan. Councilmember Sanger
asked why they would do a grant and not require repayment. Mr. Harmening stated the
economics of the deal might not allow a loan to work.
Mr. Harmening explained the policy would be for assistance on smaller redevelopment projects
where other conventional methods don’t make sense. Council and staff had discussion on the
policy and grant versus TIF assistance and how it would apply to Mr. Anderson’s request.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked staff to provide a scorecard similar to that for TIF. He further
asked staff show how Anderson would meet the policy. Mr. Harmening suggested staff do a
comparison on the policy versus what Anderson has requested. Mayor Jacobs suggested
showing a comparison to a TIF project and outline what efforts were looked at to make a last
resort.
There was Council consensus to have staff provide the requested information and bring back to
Council next week for further discussion.
5. Communications
Mr. Harmening stated a suspension on a sober house has been issued, due to non-payment of
property taxes. It had been stayed while the owner goes through the appeal process and it would
be presented before Council on October 15th. Councilmember Carver asked about the length of
the suspension. Mr. Harmening stated the suspension would be in place until the property taxes
were paid. Councilmember Sanger if they could uphold the suspension. Mr. Harmening stated
if so, they would inspect the next day and if it was still being operated, they would be operating
without a rental license and they would have to go through the court system for ordinance
enforcement. Councilmember Carver asked staff to provide the number of police calls to the
residence in the last year.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes October 8, 2007
Mr. Harmening stated he discussed the concentration policy of group homes with the League of
Minnesota Cities Legislative Committee and AMM Legislative Committee. He stated both
parties had developed draft policy to support legislation to limit concentration of group homes in
the future. He further stated he met with Ron Latz, Ryan Winkler, Tom Burke and a
councilmember from Golden Valley to set up possible meetings with the disability community to
come up with some type of agreement.
Mr. Harmening advised Council on the pawnshop ordinance court proceedings.
Mr. Hoffman updated Council on the soil vapor testing.
Councilmember Carver asked what type of feedback was requested for electronic agenda. Mr.
Harmening stated they would be contacting them individually to discuss preferences.
The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Tobacco Penalties
7. Electronic Agenda
8. St. Louis Park Active Community Planning Update
9. Active Living Hennepin County/Governor’s Fit City Information
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 5, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:03 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Management
Assistant (Ms. Honold), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Schmidt).
Guests: Vic Moore and Doug Franzen, Franzen and Associates; Dennis McGrann, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P; and Jim Detmar and Tara Meagher, Periscope.
1. 2008 Legislative Update
Ms. Honold presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs stated his biggest concern was transportation. Councilmember Paprocki suggested
seeking money for rail removal as a part of the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation project..
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be any lobbying for funding for the LRT. Mr.
McGrann stated the numbers and political dynamics indicate it is a great project and with its
links into suburbs it is has a potential to be an extremely popular project. Councilmember
Sanger suggested if the LRT received funding that there also be funds allocated for mitigation of
noise and vibration. She inquired about the pawnshop bill activity. Mr. Moore stated the bill
was introduced and still alive, stating the Police Chief Association was also opposing the bill.
Mr. Moore went on to state the bill was brought in as a two-part bill by Pawn America in an
effort to reduce fees that people pay. Mr. Franzen stated the City of Minneapolis was also very
interested in the bill. Councilmember Sanger asked if legislation would be able to override City
Ordinances. Mr. Franzen stated they would have the ability with certain ordinances, but not all.
Councilmember Sanger also stated concern with houses in foreclosure and the impact on the
surrounding neighbors, stating once a homeowner is notified, properties are not always
maintained.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated concern with the rail car storage and would like to see
controls on the number of group homes and sober houses. Mr. Moore stated he would be
looking into these concerns. Mr. Franzen explained that the Federal government cases pre-
empted what they could do with respect to rail car storage. Mr. McGrann stated the railroad has
certain unique jurisdiction when it comes to the statute. He stated he would give an update on
the regulations to Ms. Honold. Councilmember Finkelstein also inquired about leasing versus
owning the track options. Mr. McGrann stated that would be something they could pursue.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Special Study Session Minutes November 5, 2007
Mr. Harmening asked about proposing legislation to require MnDOT to prioritize funding, such
as viewing a priority for Highway 7 & Wooddale and also Highway 7 & Louisiana. He stated
the City has received Federal and local support in funding, but has not received any State
support. Mr. Harmening suggested the City lend MnDOT its share of money to ensure the City
would not lose Federal funding, stating the County would be providing some funding for
Highway 7 & Wooddale and possibly Highway 7 & Louisiana. Councilmember Sanger stated
concern as to whether they would ever receive repayment. Councilmember Sanger also asked if
they did this for this particular intersection, why it couldn’t be done for others. Mayor Jacobs
reminded everyone that the funding is project specific. Mr. Moore stated they would not need
legislation to fund the money to MnDOT. Mr. Harmening stated that MnDOT had set priorities
on the Federal funding and in 2010 the money would disappear if it wasn’t applied to the project.
There was Council consensus to have staff rework the legislative priority document to include
sober houses and railroad storage concerns and to meet with the legislature for more firm action.
Mr. Moore stated that on November 30th the Senate Bonding Committee would be visiting the
City.
2. Marketing and Branding
Mr. Zwilling presented the staff report.
Mr. Detmar updated Council on their choice for the City’s messaging and motto and stated their
preferred recommendation would be “Experience Life in the Park.” He further stated that the
message implied experiencing nature, diversity, business, the arts and neighborhood living in the
Park.
Mr. Detmar, Council and staff had discussion on the presented logo. Mr. Zwilling stated that
people surveyed were indifferent with the logo. The Council liked the overall proposed tagline,
however, stated uncertainty with the word “experience” and requested other word choice
alternatives. Council liked the fact that “City of” would be taken out and inquired about font
style and color changes, stating the logo looked tired. Mr. Zwilling stated it would be quite
costly and require changing everything associated with the current logo, such as signs,
documents and City vehicles. Mr. Zwilling suggested dropping the “City of” as they go forward,
but keeping the existing emblem and St. Louis Park logo. Mr. Detmar stated the logo comes
alive by how it’s being used.
There was Council consensus to take the “City of” out of the logo, soften the bold and to come
up with modifier for the word “experience” in the tagline.
The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL—SPECIAL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 13, 2007
1. Call to Order
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Phillip Finkelstein, Sue Sanger, Loran Paprocki, C. Paul Carver, and
Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt and John Basill.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); and City Clerk (Ms. Stroth).
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
2a. Canvass of City Election Results
Resolution No. 07-132
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to
approve Resolution No. 07-132 declaring results of the Municipal Election held
November 6, 2007.
The motion passed 5-0.
3. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Traffic Study No. 608: Authorize parking restrictions at the entrance to Nelson Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions
along the west side of the 2500 block of Georgia Avenue (the entrance to Nelson Park).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
During the reconstruction of Nelson Park in 2005, parking was temporarily removed from the
west side of the 2500 block of Georgia Avenue, which is the entrance to Nelson Park. The Parks
& Recreation Department requested that parking remain restricted once the construction work
was complete to ensure that park equipment, snowplows, and emergency vehicles would have
access to the park. The street at this location is much narrower than other public streets in the
City, at 20 feet in width. The parking restriction was also requested for the west side of Georgia
Avenue because a fire hydrant is located on that side of the street.
City staff requested input from the two houses that live adjacent to this portion of Georgia
Avenue. The homeowner on the west side of Georgia Avenue is not in favor of the restriction.
However, based on the width of the road, the need for access as previously mentioned, the
availability of other parking for the homeowner (in the driveway and on the other side of the
street), and in the interest of public safety, staff still feels that this request is reasonable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting this restriction is minimal and will come out of the general operating
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
“NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEST SIDE
OF THE 2500 BLOCK OF GEORGIA AVENUE SOUTH
(THE ENTRANCE TO NELSON PARK)
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 608
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to install parking restrictions at this
location.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install “No Parking” restrictions on
the west side of the 2500 block of Georgia Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
26TH ST WGEORGIA AVE STraffic Study No. 608: Proposed Parking Restrictions Along the West Side of the 2500 Block of Georgia Avenue South
Proposed Parking Restrictions
±
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Suspend collection of the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling through 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution to suspend collection of the local gambling tax
for 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at the time. Staff is asking Council to extend the suspension of the local gambling tax again for
2008. This will not have any affect on the city’s ability to administer or oversee charitable gambling in
2008.
BACKGROUND:
Staff presented information in 2005 regarding the positive fund balance used to enforce and administer
gambling in the city of St. Louis Park. Cities which collect a local gambling tax to pay for administrative
costs are required to submit an annual report showing the fund balance. If a positive fund balance exists,
the city must justify the reason for maintaining the positive fund balance, or refund the money directly to
the organizations that contributed to the fund.
Due to the existence of a positive fund balance, Council suspended the local tax on lawful gambling in
2005 and extended the suspension of gambling tax from 2007 on November 20, 2006. In addition,
Council amended the ordinance on October 10, 2005, changing the tax from 2% of gross receipts to three-
quarter of a percent (0.0075%).
Staff has conducted a preliminary review of the fund balance and has determined that the current balance
(approximately $16,000) is higher than originally forecasted to the Council at this time last year. The fund
balance will cover administration and enforcement costs related to charitable gambling for 2008.
Finance staff is still evaluating this issue and will return with recommendations for Council’s
consideration prior to the 2009 budgetary discussions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Finance staff will be returning to the Council in 2008 to discuss in greater detail how
the city collects gambling taxes.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachment: Resolution Suspending Collection of the Local Charitable Gambling Tax
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-____
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING COLLECTION OF
THE LOCAL CHARITABLE GAMBLING TAX
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Code Section 15-9 requires that charitable gambling
organizations operating in the city pay a tax to the city which can only be used to fund the city’s
efforts in administration and enforcement of gambling; and
WHEREAS, a positive tax fund balance exists that will adequately provide the city with
resources needed to fully fund gambling administration and enforcement operations through
2008; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that collection of the charitable gambling tax
is hereby suspended for the calendar year 2008 effective upon passage of this resolution.
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the suspension be reevaluated prior to
calendar year 2009.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
111907 Item 4b Attachment Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Conveyance of tax forfeit property located at 9429 Frederick Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing conveyance of a tax forfeit parcel located at 9429 Frederick
Avenue to be used for public use as water quality and drainage facility and as permanent open space.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None
BACKGROUND:
History
City Council approved the Minnetonka Blvd Trail Construction, Project No. 2004-0301 earlier this year.
The project was advertised, bid and awarded to DMJ Corporation on August 20, 2007 in the amount of
$237,960.15. The trail is currently under construction along the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard
from Aquila Avenue west to Hwy 169.
Analysis
The trail is being constructed of asphalt pavement in the south boulevard area of Minnetonka Blvd which
has created an increase in impervious surface. As a result of this the City was required to apply for a
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Permit. The permit rules require that the project include a best management
practice which promotes infiltration of storm water runoff and improves the water quality of the runoff.
Staff has designed a storm water detention pond which meets the requirements of the permit rules. The
storm water pond will be constructed at the outlet of the Minnetonka Blvd storm sewer system. The pond
will be located partially within three parcels located further west of the dead end on Frederick Avenue
which is west of Hillsboro Avenue and south of Minnetonka Blvd (see attached map). The city owns two
of the parcels and the 9429 Frederick Avenue parcel became tax forfeit in 1993. Staff has determined that
the tax forfeit parcel is not developable and would be best used as open space for the purpose of a water
quality and drainage area.
Administrative Process
Hennepin County has instructed Staff to complete their application form for conveyance of tax forfeit
lands and have a Council resolution approved authorizing the conveyance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no financial obligation associated with the conveyance of the tax forfeit parcel.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The conveyance of the tax forfeit property at 9429 Frederick Avenue for the purpose of constructing a
water quality detention pond follows St. Louis Park’s commitment to being a leader in environmental
stewardship and is a best practice used for water quality improvement of storm water runoff.
Attachments: Resolution
Maps (2)
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO 07-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF TAX-FORFEITED
PARCEL 18-117-21-22-0093 AT
9429 FREDERICK AVENUE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK FOR PUBLIC USE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body
of the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has provided the City with this non-conservation
property which has become tax-forfeit as a result of nonpayment of property taxes and/or special
assessments; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has determined that parcel 18-117-21-22-0093, Lot 8, Block 6,
"J. F. Lyons 4th Addition", is not a developable lot and will best serve the City as a public use as
a water quality and drainage area.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK THAT IT HEREBY:
(1) Requests conveyance of parcel 18-117-21-22-0093, Lot 8, Block 6, "J. F. Lyons
4th Addition", to the City of St. Louis Park for the public use as water quality and drainage
facility and as permanent open space; and.
(2) Authorizes the Mayor and City Manager and staff to prepare and execute such
documents as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #:4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final payment to Olympic Construction for Westdale Park Detention Pond – Project No. 2006-
1300
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $5,587.40 for
Westdale Park Detention Pond – City Project No. 2006-1300 with Olympic Construction, City
Contract No. 03-06.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
N/A
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project was constructed at the contract price with no additional costs. The funding came
from the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
WESTDALE PARK DETENTION POND
CITY PROJECT NO. 2006-1300
CONTRACT NO. 03-06
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 January 3, 2006, Olympic Construction
Services, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Westdale Park detention pond, as per Contract No.
03-06.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed
to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $108,748.00
Change Order 15,756.32
Underrun 6,830.00
Previous Payments 112,086.92
Balance Due $ 5,587.40
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Revised: Special assessment for sewer service line repair at 7720 Division Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution rescinding Resolution No. 07-097 and adopt a resolution establishing
a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 7720 Division Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Michael Dodge, owner of the single family residence at 7720 Division Street, has requested the City
to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair.
On September 4, 2007 the Council approved Resolution No. 07-097 establishing a special assessment
for the repair of the sewer line at 7720 Division Street in the amount of $2,895.
Due to conditions found during the service line work, the repair required a perma-liner be installed at
an additional cost of $2,800 bringing the total cost of the repair to $5,695. The cost for the cost for the
perma-liner was not included at the time of the approval of Resolution No. 07-097.
After consulting the City Attorney, it was determined that the best course of action was to rescind
Resolution No. 07-097 with the incorrect cost and approve a new resolution with the correct cost to
avoid any possible confusion, being this resolution is being sent to the County for inclusion on the tax
role.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 07-097
Resolution Authorizing the Special Assessment
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-097
AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF SEWER SERVICE
LINE AT 7720 DIVISION STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 7720 Division Street has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single
family residence located at 7720 Division Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
WHEREAS, conditions encountered during the repair resulting in additional cost not
included in the resolution; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to terminate the special assessment adopted
by Resolution No. 07-097. A revised assessment will by adopted pursuant to a new resolution.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 07-097 is hereby
rescinded .
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
7720 DIVISION STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 7720 Division Street has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single
family residence located at 7720 Division Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $5,695.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of the 20 year
Treasury bill rate on November 1, 2007 plus one percent (1%), which assessment is hereby
adopted.
6. The Property Owners has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Traffic Study No. 606: Authorize parking restrictions at 3920 Minnetonka Boulevard.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions
along the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Glenhurst Avenue to a point 40 feet east.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
In June of 2007, staff received a request to limit parking on the north side of Minnetonka
Boulevard, east of Glenhurst Avenue. The request cited concerns with being able to see
westbound traffic on Minnetonka Boulevard when travelling south on Glenhurst Avenue. This
has become an issue since a parking lot was constructed on this site, replacing a gas station that
had multiple driveway openings which previously restricted parking along Minnetonka
Boulevard.
Staff reviewed this request and discussed the impact of removing two parking spaces with
business owners in the area. Based on the sight lines and agreement of the business owners, staff
recommends removing the 40 feet of parking on the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard east of
Glenhurst Avenue.
Minnetonka Boulevard is a Hennepin County-owned road. As such, the county is responsible for
installing and maintaining signage. The county will install signage that has been approved by
City resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting this restriction is minimal and will come out of the general operating
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
“NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
FROM GLENHURST AVENUE TO A POINT 40 FEET TO THE EAST
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 606
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to install parking restrictions at this
location.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install “No Parking” restrictions on
the north side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Glenhurst Avenue to a point 40 feet to the
east.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
GLENHURST AVE SMINN ET O NKA BL VD
HIG HWAY 7Traffic Study No. 606: "No Parking" Restrictions along the North Side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Glenhurst Avenue to a Point 40 Feet to the East
Proposed "No Parking" Restrictions
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
City Council 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 Study Number 607: Authorize traffic controls at W. 39th Street and Zarthan Avenue and
Cambridge Street and Zarthan Avenue
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolutions authorizing traffic controls at W. 39th Street and Zarthan Avenue and
Cambridge Street and Zarthan Avenue
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
In March of this year the City received a request from a resident to change the intersection of
39th Street and Zarthan Avenue from a 2-way stop to a 4-way stop, and to install a 2-way stop
condition in the north-south direction at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Zarthan
Avenue. Staff reviewed the intersections and found that they did not meet the traffic criteria set
forth in the City’s Traffic Control Policy. However, under the policy a resident can go through
the petition process even if the desired controls are not warranted. This requires that 70% of
residents within a 600 foot radius of the intersection sign a petition requesting controls. The
resident was informed of our findings and requested information on our petition process.
In April, petition forms were sent to the resident. In early November, completed petition forms
were submitted to the City by the residents. For the intersection of W. 39th Street and Zarthan
Avenue, 98 out of 102 residents signed the petition requesting a 4-way stop condition. For the
intersection of Cambridge Street and Zarthan Avenue, 82 out of 86 residents signed the petition
requesting a 2-way stop condition in the north-south direction. This is well above the 70%
required by the City policy.
Although these stop signs are not warranted per the traffic criteria set forth in the City’s policy,
the petition requirements of the City’s policy have been met and, therefore, staff is
recommending Council authorize installation of the signs as requested.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolutions
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
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-085 AND
AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF 4-WAY STOP
SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF W. 39TH STREET WEST
AND ZARTHAN AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 607
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has
determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for installation of
Stop signs, and
WHEREAS, existing Resolution No. 85-085 currently prescribes traffic controls in this area
which are no longer relevant.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that Resolution No. 85-085 be rescinded.
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the 4-way stop signs at the
intersection of W. 39th Street and Zarthan Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION
OF STOP SIGNS ON ZARTHAN AVENUE SOUTH AT CAMBRIDGE STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 607
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has
determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for installation of
Stop signs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install stop signs on Zarthan Avenue South
at Cambridge Street (north and south-bound approaches).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Conservation Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a Conservation Agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD).
This agreement would provide for the conveyance of a conservation easement over the property
that the city is acquiring from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) along Minnehaha
Creek near the MSC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council previously approved the purchase of this property from the DNR. The DNR
approached Parks and Recreation staff in regards to the purchase of the property along
Minnehaha Creek, which they owned. The property is a narrow strip of land, five acres in size,
located on the north and south side of the creek near the Municipal Service Center (MSC). An
attached map shows the location.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Easement
As a part of the purchase agreement with the DNR, the City agreed to allow the MCWD to have
an easement on this property. The MCWD initially expressed an interest in acquiring the
property and managing it. Staff met with the MCWD and the DNR to discuss the joint interest in
the property. It was recommended the City of St. Louis Park own the property and MCWD
acquire a conservation easement over the property. The MCWD would then help provide
financing to reestablish the creek banks as well as restoring native plantings in the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends granting a conservation easement to MCWD on this property. Staff would
work with the MCWD in the future to make minimal improvements to the area which may
include a trail along portions of the creek.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The DNR has identified their minimum selling price of this land to be $1,000. In addition, they
would like to be reimbursed for the deed tax and recording fee for a total price of $1,049.30.
There is no additional cost to the MCWD for this conservation easement. In future years, the
MCWD may ask the City to contribute some money towards restoration projects in this area or
along other areas of the creek. At this time, we are not being asked to make any financial
contributions for this property.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 4h) Page 2
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Conservation Agreement
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The purchase of the property and the conservation easement would be consistent with the
recommendations which recently came out of the Visioning process. Partnering with the MCWD
to reestablish the creek banks, prevent further erosion and restore native plantings helps the City
to further its vision to preserve the environment. It is also possible for the City to create a trail
along this property in the future.
Attachments: Location of DNR property purchased
MCWD Agreement
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Change Order No. 4 to Contract 15-07 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard Lift Station (LS) #18
& Force Main (FM) - Project 2005-1200
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. 15-07, Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard
LS#18 and FM – Project No. 2005-1200 – located at North I-394 Frontage Road and Ford Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
History
Previous Contract Information
The City Council approved Contract No. 15-07 on February 20, 2007 with Gridor Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $468,377.00 for lift station and force main rehabilitation at the North I-394
Frontage Road (Wayzata Boulevard) and Ford Road.
On April 6, 2007 Change Order No. 1 was approved for a credit in the amount of $2,500 due the
reduction in warranty time for the generator from the generator manufacturer.
On June 22, 2007 Change Order No. 2 was approved for an increase in cost in the amount of
$956.00 due to the need to change the pipe type due to the pipe depth.
On October 1, 2007 Change Order No. 3 was approved for an increase in the amount of
$1,678.00 to replace the existing wooden pole for the electronic SCADA warning system with a
fiberglass mast pole.
Proposed Contract Change
A component of the project is to install a new liner in the existing force main to upgrade the pipe
to new pipe standards without having to dig up the entire roadway. When attempting to
complete this work, the contractor encountered a problem where they were not able to negotiate
their equipment through a bend section of the existing pipe. This requires digging up a small
section of the roadway and repairing/replacing the bend section of the pipe prior to performing
liner installation. This work was not anticipated in the original contract and will result in an
increase to the contract in the amount of $35,401.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
This project is being funded from the Sewer Utility Fund budget. There are adequate funds
available in the Sewer Utility Fund to cover the cost of the additional work. The original
contract amount is $468,377.00; the increase for Change Orders 1-4 is $35,535.00 bringing the
total contract amount to $503,912.00.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 - Item 4i Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 4 to Contract 15-07 – Ford Rd Lift Station – Project 2005-1200
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Exhibit “A” - Change Order No. 4
Exhibit “B” – Contractor Cost Estimate
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
EXHIBIT “A”
Contract No.: 15-07
Change Order No.: 4 Date: November 19, 2007
Project Name: Ford Road Lift Station
Project Location: North I-394 Frontage Road and Ford Road
Contractor: Gridor Construction, Inc. 3990 27th Street SE
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone No. 763/746-9077
Type of Work: Lift Station Rehabilitation
Amount of Original Contract: $468,377.00
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted:
Roadway excavation, force main repair/replacement for a short section of pipe, and roadway
restoration. Costs for the additional work will be paid on a unit price basis based on the actual costs.
See Attachment “B” for the Contractors Cost Estimate.
Total Change Order No. 4 Amount:$35,401.00
Original Contract Price:$468,377.00
Previous Change Order(s) Amount :$134.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders:$503,912.00
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
City Engineer (or Designee) Date Director of Public Works Date
Approved:
City Manager Date Mayor 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: November 19, 2007
City Council 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:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Letter of Commitment.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Approval of a motion authorizing City staff to pursue Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) grant funding for innovative low impact stormwater treatment in the West End
redevelopment project area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board granted the stormwater permit for
Duke’s grading and utility work (approved by City Council under the preliminary plat and
Conditional Use Permit). The board recognized that The West End will be a unique project, and
directed MCWD staff to contact City staff and Duke Realty and explore opportunities to
incorporate innovative low impact development elements into the plan.
MCWD has a Low Impact Redevelopment Grant Program to pay for practices that treat/manage
stormwater over and above existing regulatory requirements. The grant is generally limited to
$500,000; however, the MCWD Board has contributed more money to larger and more
innovative projects. For example, the board committed $1.5 million to Mound’s Downtown
Redevelopment in 2005. Both Duke Realty and City staff are exploring this further.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Developing a low impact storm water treatment approach is consistent with a Strategic Direction
adopted by the City Council –
Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Action: 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.
Attachments: Draft Letter of Commitment
MCWD Low Impact Redevelopment Grant Program Information
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DRAFT
November 20, 2007
Mr. Mike Wyatt
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Low Impact Redevelopment Grant Program
The West End Redevelopment Project Area
At its November 19, 2007 meeting, the St. Louis Park City Council was provided information about
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Low Impact Redevelopment Grant Program and the
MCWD Board’s interest in The West End redevelopment project.
On behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, I wish to inform you that the City Council formally
authorized City staff to work with MCWD to explore opportunities and grant funding to
incorporate low impact stormwater management techniques into The West End redevelopment
project area.
Please contact Senior Planner Sean Walther at (952) 924-2574 if you have any questions. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Tom Harmening
City Manager
DRAFT
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
2008 RECOMMENDED PROJECT/PROGRAM
PREPARED BY:_Michael Wyatt, Planner/Program Manager_ DATE: _June 15, 2007_
Project Low Impact Redevelopment Grant Program (3121)
Description This is a redevelopment partnership grant program to challenge local communities exceed stormwater regulatory requirements in urban redevelopment opportunities
Location District-Wide
Need Low-impact redevelopment within high-traffic urban areas provides the District with opportunities to leverage water resource improvements in redevelopment areas to achieve District goals as well as outreach opportunities to educate the public about water quality and stormwater runoff. Leveraging such opportunities is dependent on the ability of the District to proactively work with cities to identify opportunities and investigate alternatives during preliminary planning stages of the overall redevelopment. Consistent with Board policy, the fund described here would be utilized to maximize opportunities with communities currently planning redevelopment such as Long Lake and Wayzata as well as those opportunities which may arise in other communities in the future. The program fund is created as a revolving fund to maintain a baseline level of funding over time.
To qualify for District program involvement, a community redevelopment must meet the following minimum set of criteria:
1. The redevelopment must be identified within the City Comprehensive Plan,
2. The City must be actively engaged in constructing the improvements or coordinating the development with private entities,
3. The City must assume the long-term maintenance and operations of stormwater facilities proposed in conjunction with the project and fund necessary maintenance through its Local Surface Water Management Plan,
4. The aggregate stormwater facilities must achieve a level of treatment that exceeds MCWD regulatory requirements,
Stormwater facilities cost-shared with District funds must be filed against the property through protective covenants and a maintenance program approved by MCWD.
Outcome 1. Provide the primary benefit of a high degree (above and beyond regulatory requirements) of stormwater runoff treatment prior to discharge into surface waters; reduce pollutant loading levels and quantify relative to MCWD loading goals
2. Provide secondary benefits of habitat creation, green space conservation, public education and impervious surface reduction
3. Serve as a demonstration site and an example of sustainable development within a highly developed urban area
Schedule Ongoing – this is a revolving grant fund
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Change Order No. 1 to Contract 105-07 – Minnetonka Blvd Trail Improvement – Project 2004-0302.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 105-07, Minnetonka Blvd Trail Improvement –
Project 2004-0302
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested to Council authorized
contracts.
BACKGROUND:
History
City Council approved the Minnetonka Blvd Trail Construction, Project No. 2004-0301 earlier this year.
The project was advertised, bid and awarded to DMJ Corporation on August 20, 2007 in the amount of
$237,960.15. The trail is currently under construction along the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard
from Aquila Avenue west to Hwy 169.
Analysis
The trail is being constructed of asphalt pavement in the south boulevard area of Minnetonka Blvd which
has created an increase in impervious surface. As a result of this the City was required to apply for a
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Permit. The permit rules require that the project include a best management
practice which promotes infiltration of storm water runoff and improves the water quality of the runoff.
Staff has designed a storm water detention pond which meets the requirements of the permit rules.
To construct the pond, additional work will be required of the contractor which was not provided for in
the original contract. The contractor has provided a quote for the extra work based on a lump sum
amount for the pond construction which includes the cost to excavate the pond, place rip rap for bank
stabilization and erosion control; and wetland turf establishment. Also included in Change Order No. 1
are additional unforeseen items for the trail construction not provided for in the contract. These include:
granular borrow which is clean sand type fill material to replace the poor soils beneath the trail area, and
hydrant adjustment.
The total cost for Change Order No. 1 is $28,866.00
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project is funded from 2005 General Obligation bond proceeds along with the $79,000 contribution
from Hennepin County. The additional cost for the work associated with Change Order No. 1 still falls
within the budget established in the Capital Improvement Program.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Change Order No. 1
Plan Sheet of Storm Water Pond
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Contract No.: 105-07 Change Order No.: 1 Date: November 19, 2007 Project Name: Minnetonka Blvd Trail Improvement Project Location: Minnetonka Blvd from Aquila Avenue to Hwy 169 Contractor: DMJ Corporation 2392 Pioneer Trail PO Box 299 Hamel, MN 55340 Phone No. 763-478-6878 Type of Work: Extra Utility work Amount of Original Contract: $237,960.15
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Storm water Detention Pond Lump Sum $14,000 0 0 1.0 $14,000.00
Granular Borrow CY $14.00 0 0 900 $12,600.00
Adjust Hydrant 6” Each $539.00 0 0 2 $1,078.00
Adjust Hydrant 12” Each $594.00 0 0 2 $1,188.00
Total with Revised Quantity $28,866.00 Less Contract Amount 0.00 Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $28,866.00 Original Contract Price: $237,960.15 Previous Change Orders (None)
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $266,826.15
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: November 19, 2007
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:
Amendment No. 3 to Contract 81-05 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard Lift Station (LS) #18 &
Force Main (FM) - Project 2005-1200.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 81-05 providing additional Professional
Services related to Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Replacement, Project No. 2005-1200
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
History
Previous Contract Information
This project consists of the construction of a new sanitary sewer lift station to replace the aging
station. The project will include a new station, controls, pumps and appurtenances, force main
rehabilitation, and an emergency generator power supply. The existing station has reached its
life expectancy.
On July 14, 2005 the Council approved an agreement with Barr Engineering to provide the
following: feasibility study, design and prepare plans & specifications, and prepare bidding
documents.
On December 15, 2005 the Council approved Amendment No. 1 to include a re-evaluation of the
service area due to the significant multifamily construction in the area requiring additional force
main design.
On June 9, 2006 three bids for the project were received; however one was incomplete and not
accepted. The lowest bid was 63% above the engineer’s estimate. From conversation with
City’s engineering design consultant, Barr Engineering, there were a number of issues that
probably contributed to the high price of the bids including:
The time of the year the bids were opened combined with contractor unavailability
The recent increased cost of pipe lining (needed for force main rehabilitation)
Not providing the exact depth and location of the existing force main
Specified construction methods outlined by the Engineer
On July 10, 2006 Council rejected the bids and directed staff to revise the plans and re-advertise
in the fall pending additional engineering and plan revisions.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 - Item 4l Page 2
Subject: Amendment No. 3 for Contract 81-05 – Project 2005-1200
On October 16, 2006 the Council approved Amendment No. 2 to provide additional services that
included: getting an exact location of the existing force main; modification of the plans and
specifications so they are less restrictive to methods used in the construction of the lift station;
modify the project to include more bid items for appropriate portions of the project; revise the
bidding documents accordingly, and provide additional construction inspection services.
Additional Professional Services
Additional engineering and inspection services are needed relating to the force main liner
installation required to upgrade the existing pipe to new pipe standards without having to dig up
the entire roadway. When attempting to complete this work, the contractor encountered a
problem where they were not able to negotiate their equipment through the bend section of the
existing pipe. This requires digging up the roadway and repairing/replacing the bend section of
the pipe prior to performing liner installation. This work was not planned for in the original
contract and will result in an increase to the contract in the amount of $5,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
This project is being funded from the Sewer Utility Fund budget. There are adequate funds
available in the Sewer Utility Fund to cover the cost of the additional work. The original
contract amount is $23,600.00, the increase for Amendments 1-3 is $41,400.00 bringing the total
contract amount to $65,000.00.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachment: Proposed Amendment No. 3
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
AMENDMENT NO. 3
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE FORD ROAD LIFT STATION
CONTRACT NO. 81-05
THIS AMENDMENT is made on ________________________________ and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, and BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY.
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for replacement of the Ford Road
Lift Station dated July 14, 2005. On December 15, 2005 Amendment No. 1 was entered into to re-evaluate
the service area due to the significant multifamily construction in the area requiring additional force
main design, force main design, and barrier wall design. On October 16, 2006 Amendment No. 2 was entered
into to get an exact location of the existing force main; modification of the plans and specifications so
they are less restrictive to methods used in the construction of the lift station; modify the project to
include more bid items for appropriate portions of the project; revise the bidding documents
accordingly, and provide additional construction inspection services.
2. ITEM 3 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the not to
exceed compensation amount shall increase by $5,500 from $59,500 to $65,000.
3. ITEM NO. 4A: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PROJECT: The paragraph shall be amended to also
include Exhibit “D” (additional scope of services outlined in Barr Engineering’s proposal dated November 14,
2007) attached hereto.
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.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Reviewed for Public Works:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Jeffery W. Jacobs, Mayor Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
___________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
By_________________________________
Attest:
Its__________________________________
__________________________________
Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk By _________________________________
Its__________________________________
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 17, 2007--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:21 p.m.
2. Minutes: September 19, 2007
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the September 19, 2007
minutes.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
3. Hearings
A. Melrose Institute – Preliminary Plat, Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development, Conditional Use Permits for Grading and Floodplain Mitigation
Location: 3515 Beltline Blvd.
Applicant: United Properties and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
Case Nos.: 07-48-S, 07-49-CUP, 07-50-CUP, and 07-51-PUD
Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reviewed the project.
Commissioner Morris asked how the City could permit signage off of the development
site, on City property, and if it was included in the PUD. The PUD shouldn’t extend past
the development site.
Mr. Fulton replied the PUD incorporated the entire site. Lot 2 may come in as a different
phase. Signage on the site will be retained for a future civic use. The signs will not be
solely for the Melrose Institute. There will be space reserved for the future.
Commissioner Morris asked about signage off-site and asked if it was permitted under
the code without a separate sign permit. Mr. Fulton replied it incorporates the entire site
with a PUD. Staff was not just looking at the northern site. PUDs can extend beyond
ownership. There can be combined signage that is separately owned.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2007
Commissioner Morris asked about the subdivision variance and if the easements would
be part of the final plat.
Mr. Fulton replied City code required a ten-foot easement around the perimeter of any
lot, which was not met and required a variance. The criteria for a typical variance in the
zoning code were different than a subdivision variance. When dealing with a variance
from the zoning code, there are statutory criteria set by the state and there has to be a
hardship. With a subdivision variance, the criteria regard whether it is possible to have a
reasonable use of the property. Staff determined it was reasonable because the easements
were being provided in an alternative way. The drainage on the site was being handled in
a storm water pond to the north. Mr. Fulton displayed the location of the sanitary sewer
line, a gas main, and storm sewer drain. The intent of the easement requirement in the
subdivision ordinance is to accommodate measures for utility access for drainage, which
was being accommodated by easements on the plat.
Commissioner Morris said according to the zoning code, the Planning Commission reviews
final plats and he asked staff to check that.
Ms. McMonigal replied that staff will check it.
Brian Carey, United Properties, discussed the project and introduced others involved.
Bob Friddle, architect, spoke about the building materials and design.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the interior consultation rooms had a view to the outside.
Mr. Friddle replied there were a number of consult rooms on the outside of the building
with windows. There were also a number of rooms on the interior of the building. It was
a typical clinic format. They tried to provide views at the end of the corridors to help
with way finding and for people to look out. Some patients feel more comfortable in a
room without windows. Some patients have concerns about seeing their reflections. A
very non-reflective, high performance glass will be used. The clinic wants to
accommodate a variety of patient needs.
Duane Spiegle, Park Nicollet, stated that plans for the institute were presented at a
National Eating Disorders Association conference and the project was very well received.
He said that St. Louis Park is going to benefit as a community because of this project. He
thanked the Commission and staff for their work and support. It was exceeding Park
Nicollet’s expectations in terms of the exposure it was getting and they were expecting
great things.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson stated this was a very impressive project and would be an asset
to the community. He fully endorsed the project.
Commissioner Morris asked staff if the street easement shown on the north edge of lot
two had been vacated.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2007
Mr. Fulton replied it was vacated by the City Council.
Chair Johnston-Madison said she felt the developer had done a great job and she supported the
project.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat,
Preliminary and Final PUD, and Conditional Use Permits for grading and floodplain
mitigation, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-1
(Morris opposed).
4. Other Business
Chair Johnston-Madison stated at the last Commission meeting Commissioner Morris
discussed having a study session on residential design reviews/guidelines. She felt they
should move ahead with that.
Commissioner Morris said he felt the Commission should pursue a discussion about
neighborhood/community control over design and how other communities have used
mechanisms to relate to problems that are now coming before the Commission. It
seemed to work in other places. Staff could research “form” zoning. The Planning
Commission should have a study session on the topic.
Chair Johnston-Madison noted the City of Edina was considering an ordinance regarding
McMansions. The City of Minneapolis had also looked at something similar.
Commissioner Morris noted he was specifically looking at Louisville, Kentucky where
certain neighborhood characteristics are looked at even though a proposal met the zoning
code. They were able to determine if a proposed project didn’t fit the community. He said
there are successful ways of limiting those types of developments; not the type of structure
being built as much as the architectural blend with the community, the lot size, forms, etc.
Commissioner Robertson thought it was a good idea to hold a discussion and to look at
examples and see how they work and how St. Louis Park could apply them. Looking at
neighborhood character and how to address zoning would help citizens feel more
comfortable about some developments.
Commissioner Kramer left the meeting at 6:35.
Chair Johnston-Madison felt the Commission needed to be very clear about their
purposes and goals. Commissioners should think about goals and provide research to
staff. They needed to have a clear purpose and discuss the next steps and the issues they
wanted to cover.
Ms. McMonigal said that sending ideas and goals to staff would be helpful. She
commented that other communities are discussing these issues. Staff could explain
exactly what the rules and parameters are in the zoning code and the limitations. They
could also look at other cities. Being very specific was important. In the past the City
Council has talked about design. The City needs to be careful designing homes and there
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2007
was sensitivity about how far the City can go. She said she believed the Commission was
talking about the bulk of a home on a property, which had been the issue in Minneapolis
and Minnetonka with homes that take up a larger percentage of a lot. That was one of the
main problems versus design issues. She asked the Planning Commissioners to send her
their thoughts by the end of next week.
5. Communications
A. Active Living – Sidewalks and Trail Planning
Ms. McMonigal commented on the October 24th Open House. The committee is
looking for a lot of input.
Commissioner Person asked if anything would come before the Planning Commission
out of this process. Ms. McMonigal replied yes, the plan would come before the
Commission in a more finalized form.
B. Other
Mr. Fulton mentioned the Fretham 9th Addition plat application went to the City Council
on October 15th. The Council determined it might be more advantageous to proceed with
a three-lot configuration with some variances to lot size. The request will be coming
back to the Commission.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 6:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4n
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 3 through November 16,
2007.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,277.36FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESACCOUNTEMPS
233.63WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
233.63SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
233.63SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
233.61STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,211.86
25.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACCURINT
25.00
1,625.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
1,625.00
266.05EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORPO
266.05
201.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
201.00
823.60EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAMERICA'S VEBA SOLUTION
823.60
170.62GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAMERICAN PRESSURE INC
170.62
132.26PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
105.44PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
48.02ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.74VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
66.74WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
66.73SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
464.93
1,043.63PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,043.63
1,707.20PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESANDERSEN, EARL INC
1,707.20
673.19ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
673.19
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
88.00COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISORY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPCO INT
88.00
206.54GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
206.54
169.80OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
169.80
254.40GROUNDS MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO
254.40
1,898.14WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,898.14
17,136.83GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSB&M HAZELWOOD MASONRY INC
17,136.83
527.87HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBACHMANS
527.87
1,032.85NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBAD ATTITUDE PRODUCTIONS
1,032.85
54.32SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBARR ENGINEERING CO
912.50PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
966.82
13,869.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBERGERSON CASWELL INC
13,869.00
48.99GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESBG AUTOMOTIVE OF MINNESOTA
48.99
2,424.30POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBKV GROUP
2,424.30
498.45DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOHN WELDING INC
498.45
7.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBOLEN, TOM
7.96
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
121.10POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
121.10
2,214.85GROUNDS MTCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
2,214.85
553.80SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
553.80
513.96INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBUILDING FASTENERS
513.96
12,173.47ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
224.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
1,708.00WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
14,105.47
438.34PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTCANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
438.34
7,200.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESCARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
7,200.00
758.30DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
758.30
119.13EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
119.13
2,739.42DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
857.20APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,596.62
745.16FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
417.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
35.64WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
56.11NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
3,527.67WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
181.12REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
148.59SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
5,111.77
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.30HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
680.61DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
24.95APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE OFFICE EQUIPMENT
447.19NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8.18VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
115.14VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
23.74GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,371.27WIRELESS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,692.38
168.72POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCMI INC
168.72
22,385.52VOICE SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECOLLINS COMMUNICATIONS
22,385.52
32.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALCOLLINS ELECTRIC
32.00
369.85NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
369.85
172.85GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
172.85
584.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
584.28
7,921.25POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
7,921.25
52.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESCOUCH, GARY
52.54
569.78GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCOUNTRY FLAGS
569.78
11.50TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
11.50
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
96.43POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
7.88NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
104.31
1,866.95SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
275.38SSD 2 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
2,038.86SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
594.27SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,775.46
1,050.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGDAKOTA CO TECH COLLEGE
750.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
1,800.00
58.60INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALDEPENDABLE ELECTRIC
58.60
8,718.22INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
8,718.22
191.50ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
191.50
11,317.27ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
1,365.66AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
12,682.93
315.55POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
315.55
370.30BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSDUNDEE NURSERY
370.30
151.23PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDYNAMIC FASTENER
151.23
3,504.77POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDYNAMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
3,504.77
35.16STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGEDDIHI, ISMAIL
35.16
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDGEWOOD PARK PROPERTIES
6.39
821.19ESCROWSBass Lake/EDI/UPEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
821.19
2,094.98WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
2,094.98
517.50REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESENSR CORPORATION
492.00SAMPLINGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,095.07STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,104.57
158.80PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
158.80
751.99EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONFARROW, NIKKI
751.99
20.80GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
20.80
10.82POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
49.25SAMPLINGPOSTAGE
60.07
150.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFERNANDEZ, MOISES
150.00
612.64ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
612.64
306.72WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFILTRATION SYSTEMS INC
306.72
13.31GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
13.31
725.22BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFMS TECHNICAL GROUP INC
725.22
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
384.16GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFORCE AMERICA INC
384.16
333.33ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
333.33
51.46GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSGENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP
51.46
98.99WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGONZALES, LOUIS
98.99
143.05GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
649.62WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
792.67
111.99WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
111.99
61,085.47TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHAINES TREE SERVICE, B J
8,625.44TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
69,710.91
2,457.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHALF TECHNOLOGY INC, ROBERT
2,457.00
564.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
96.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
660.00
273.40SUPERVISORYTRAVEL/MEETINGSHARCEY, MICHAEL
273.40
143.83WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
143.83
600.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHELLIER, ROBERT
600.00
897.98NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
1,646.80POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,544.78
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
210.27PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
210.27
990.45OFFICE EQUIP MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHENRICKSEN PSG
990.45
353.40INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGHOLMLUND & SON'S CONSTRUCTION
353.40
69.42GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
89.27RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
33.20PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
535.22CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
727.11
18.54GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
17.01ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.20PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
3.83BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.12WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2.91SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
18.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
23.77STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
197.77
46.79HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
83.59WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
164.70SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
475.20HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
770.28
24,814.23CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY
24,814.23
54.64IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
54.64
41.36GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
41.36
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10.48WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEINDELCO
10.48
256.67PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
256.67PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING SERVICE
513.34
63.50POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
63.50
10.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGISD #283
10.00
419.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSJAFFA, NOAM
419.69
41.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGJEFFREY, SEROJNIE
41.00
3.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
3.82
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWJESSEN DIRECT LLC
1,500.00
374.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
374.00
5,475.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJT MURAL PAINTING & THEME ARTS
5,475.00
141.43WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKGREO MANAGEMENT
141.43
570.85WIRELESS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLANDIS, FRANK
570.85
75.00WIRELESS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLANDLOGIC
75.00
1,614.58RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
1,614.58
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,740.00TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICELAUREL TREE FARMS
840.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
2,580.00
49.01GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
49.01
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
85.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
115.00
145.75GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
145.75
100.00ASSESSING G & A ADVERTISINGMAAO
100.00
2,852.91PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMAGNUSON SOD/HAAG SERVICES INC
2,852.91
660.00FITNESS CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
660.00
246.83WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
246.83
425.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
295.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
295.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,015.00
44.95WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMATHESON-WOLTER, HEIDI
44.95
47.57WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMCCLENAHAN, TOM
47.57
27.16PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
101.18CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
60.71INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
189.05
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
61.14SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
17.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.07ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.26
90.21PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
90.21
408.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
408.00
84,362.50INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
260,882.02OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
345,244.52
146.07POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
146.07
651.72PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
4,500.95CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL GENERAL SUPPLIES
5,152.67
685.00CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESMIDWEST COCA-COLA BTLG
685.00
19,448.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSMIDWEST FUELS INVER GROVE HEIG
19,448.51
360.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
360.00
354.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
354.00
100.00PATROLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS RIFLE CLUB
100.00
372.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
372.60
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,100.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
2,100.96
117.38EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA DEPT REVENUE
117.38
1,720.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGMINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY & RES
1,376.00SUPERVISORYTRAINING
1,032.00PATROLTRAINING
4,128.00
125.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAININGMINNESOTA NATURALISTS ASSOC
125.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
350.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL
350.00
140.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA STATE FIRE MARSHAL
140.00
95.00REC CENTER BUILDING LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
95.00
500.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING REVENUEMORRISON FENSKE & SUND PA
500.00
539.00SAMPLINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
539.00
5.93GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
14.89PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.66PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES
152.91PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
43.54GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
258.93
96.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
96.00
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
495.00CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ZONING/SUBDIVISIONNORDIC WARE
495.00
158.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSNORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC
158.50
139.20STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'CONNOR, CHARLES
139.20
265.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSO'GARA, ELLEN
265.32
400.00ANIMAL CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
400.00
6,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOB MULLIGAN LLC
6,000.00
186.00TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
12.45GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.33GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.06OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
37.37INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.45PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.45PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.45PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.45VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
382.01
462.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
462.00
3,037.14PORTABLE TOILETS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
219.69WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,256.83
306.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
22,368.28PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
22,674.28
31.95PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPETERSEN ALUMINUM CORP
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
37.72PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
69.67
2,565.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, BRENT
2,565.00
6.00ADMINISTRATION BUDGET MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH
32.84ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.70ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
7.56HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
36.90TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES BUDGET POSTAGE
16.00ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
33.80FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
5.64FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.12INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
67.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
3.00INSPECTIONS G & A MISC EXPENSE
11.70PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
12.00INSTALLATIONSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
19.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
.82GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.69GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
4.99HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSE
349.56
1,882.71PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
1,882.71
506.25SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLITZ, JORDAN
506.25
357.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
357.80
180.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPOST BOARD
180.00
250.62CONCESSIONSEQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPROFESSIONAL BEVERAGE SYSTEMS
250.62
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
38,567.20ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
4,940.32WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
961.28WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,630.77STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
48,099.57
34.78GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSQUEST ENGINEERING INC
34.78
644.95FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONEQWEST
110.42COP SHOP TELEPHONE
2,022.36COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
2.84PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
22.52REC CENTER BUILDING TELEPHONE
2,803.09
486.00TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICERANGEL, MARISA
486.00
82.27WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
82.27SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
82.27SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
82.28STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
329.09
14,697.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHERREHRIG PACIFIC CO
14,697.00
24.95ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSREMODELING
24.95
273.40PATROLTRAVEL/MEETINGSRIEGERT, JONATHAN
273.40
2,959.40HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRILEY, DETTMAN & KELSEY
2,959.40
3,428.33Justice Assistance Grant -2005 TRAININGRIVERWOOD CONF CTR
3,428.33
190.75WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSROTHSCHILD, WILLIAM
190.75
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,185.60EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRUD, JOSEPH
1,185.60
304.96PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISA-AG INC
304.96
17.23HUMAN RESOURCES CITESAM'S CLUB
318.75SPECIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
268.44HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
604.42
230.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSANI-MASTERS INC
230.00
165.29PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSAVITT BROS INC
165.29
294.69BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
294.69
92.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHWANTZ, JASON
92.00
20.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEIVERT, JACKIE
20.00
160.00WATER UTILITY G&A REPAIRSSENSUS METERING SYSTEMS
160.00
585.75TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS INC.
585.75
6.02WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSHUBERT, COREY
6.02
973.18BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
973.18
42.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSPROLES, CHACONAS
42.11
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
47.18SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
47.18
253.47PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO
253.47
852.00PARK SHELTER BUILDING PROGRAM REVENUESTAR TRIBUNE
852.00
2,055.59POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
34.99POLICE G & A POSTAGE
930.16RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,020.74
3,579.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING SERVICETALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
3,579.00
2,336.06DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTTECH DEPOT
2,336.06
254.60BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
212.20BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
466.80
298.20PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING SERVICETESSMAN SEED INC
298.20
3,351.15ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESTKDA
3,351.15
745.50TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICETOP NOTCH TREE CARE
745.50
42,650.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
42,650.00
175.97GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
175.97
610.00SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
526.60SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,330.09PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,466.69
100.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
100.00
256.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
256.00
24,585.10WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNPLUGGED CITIES LLC
9,705.54DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
34,290.64
196.62WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUSA BLUE BOOK
196.62
81.93POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
5.94WATER UTILITY BUDGET TELEPHONE
87.87
87.49ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESUSI EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT SAL
87.49
48.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESVAIL, LORI
203.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
251.00
110.58ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
110.58
160.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
160.00
129.12POLICE G & A TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
129.12
286.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSVICTOR, JEFF
286.15
378.28POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING ID PRODUCTS
378.28
11/14/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:26:04R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
11/16/2007 -11/03/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
109.99PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
109.99
66,015.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT
31,540.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
14,547.75SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
28,389.24SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
24,078.91SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
164,571.40
170.56GRANTSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYWASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE
170.56
7,295.25CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWASTEQUIP
7,295.25
8,076.79FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
139.65PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,845.75ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
553.28WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21,917.17OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
86.73OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
43,619.37
2,484.91NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
2,484.91
141.64VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
141.64
37.38HUMAN RESOURCES CITEZIMMERMAN, JEAN
37.38
39.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZIP PRINTING
39.94
Report Totals 1,104,111.73
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing and Resolution approving the establishment of The West End Tax Increment
Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the establishment of The West
End Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment
district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing
District to facilitate Duke Realty’s proposed West End project?
Over the past year, the EDA/City Council has worked with Duke Realty on redevelopment plans
for the property Duke owns in the vicinity of Park Place Boulevard, Utica Avenue, Wayzata
Blvd and Gamble Drive. The EDA/City Council reviewed Duke’s TIF application (3/26/07),
approved and amended a Preliminary Development Agreement (5/21/07 and 9/4/07); and,
discussed potential redevelopment contract terms and levels of city assistance (7/24/07 and
9/24/07). The next step in the process is to create a TIF district to facilitate The West End
project.
Authorizing the establishment of The West End TIF District does not, in itself, commit the city
to any specific level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply creates
the funding vehicle that enables the EDA and City Council to provide the Redeveloper with the
negotiated financial assistance. The City Council will have the opportunity to consider the
precise amount of TIF assistance when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is
formally presented in the coming weeks.
BACKGROUND:
Existing Conditions
Duke Realty Corporation owns approximately 47 acres at the southwest corner of I-394 and
Highway 100. Given the property’s highway exposure and close proximity to Downtown
Minneapolis, the Duke site is both highly visible and highly desirable within the Twin Cities real
estate market. It also serves as a prominent gateway into the City of St. Louis Park. Duke plans
to redevelop approximately 39 acres of this site area (32.5 acres in St. Louis Park and 6 acres in
Golden Valley). The proposed redevelopment area consists largely of two parts.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 6a) Page 2
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
The eastern portion is approximately 16 acres; ten acres of which are in the City of St. Louis
Park and six acres are in the City of Golden Valley. This area previously included six, 40+ year
old office buildings totaling 178,000 square feet. Duke removed the three office buildings in
Golden Valley and the other three in St. Louis Park are being demolished. The Golden Valley
portion of Duke’s site would not be in the proposed TIF District.
The western portion of Duke’s redevelopment area is approximately 18 acres. This area is
occupied by two, vacant buildings. These are the former Novartis Warehouse on Park Place
Boulevard and the former Northwest Tennis Club Building on the corner of Park Place and
Gamble. These buildings are planned to be demolished as well.
Directly in the middle of these two redevelopment areas lies the 1600 and MoneyGram Office
Towers, as well as two restaurant pads occupied by Olive Garden and Chili’s. Duke will retain
these restaurants and Class “A” office buildings and construct a regional commercial
development around them.
In addition the 6.1 acre parcel at 5353 Wayzata Blvd (Associated Bank parcel) is proposed to be
included within The West End TIF District. While this site is not owned by Duke, a new hotel is
proposed on the east side of the parcel that will be integrated into The West End project. Public
improvements on this parcel will also be necessary to accommodate The West End project.
Proposed Project Plans
Duke plans to redevelop the eastern side of its property as a Class “A” office park. It will
include approximately 1,100,000 square foot of office space distributed between three or four
office buildings as market conditions warrant. The office buildings will be constructed in St.
Louis Park and connected to a seven level parking structure constructed in Golden Valley. The
first speculative office building, approximately 275,000 SF, will likely be completed in 2010.
On the western side of the site (running parallel to Park Place Boulevard), Duke and joint
venture partner Jeffrey R. Anderson plan to construct a 340,000 square foot “lifestyle” shopping
center. This regional destination retail area will be called The West End. It will feature (a) retail
tenants consistent with an urban “lifestyle” center; (b) casual and sit-down restaurants; (c) multi-
screen cinema; and (d) approximately 30,000 square feet of second story office space. Also
included in the center will be indoor and outdoor public gathering places, a community room and
a police sub-station (“cop-shop”). The master plan for this area depicts a combination of single
story and two story uses. The Redevelopers will provide single-level, underground parking
beneath the largest retail block and a five-level parking structure opposite the existing
MoneyGram and 1600 Tower parking structures. A skyway will connect these existing parking
structures with the new five-level structure so as to provide shared parking within the
redevelopment. The Redevelopers plan to construct the retail/restaurant/entertainment part of the
master plan in a single phase, commencing in 2008 with completion expected in the fall of 2009.
In addition, at least two new hotels are planned within the proposed TIF district. One is
proposed on the eastern parking lot of the Associated Bank parcel. This 124-unit extended stay
facility will not be constructed by Duke. The other hotel will be approximately 140 units and
will be constructed in conjunction with the Duke redevelopment along the new extension of
West 16th Street. Both hotels are likely to be completed by the end of 2009.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 6a) Page 3
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
Over the past year, Duke and the City have worked closely to develop a master plan for the
subject redevelopment area that features:
¾ An attractive, upscale, class “A” image
¾ Urban development density
¾ Mixed use
¾ Pedestrian and transit friendly
¾ Functional public spaces and amenities
Upon completion, The West End is expected to be unlike any other commercial development in
the Twin Cities.
Property Value
Currently, the six (6) properties within the proposed redevelopment area in St. Louis Park have a
total market value of approximately $43 million. The projected market value of this area upon
redevelopment is estimated at approximately $244 million. The property taxes payable in 2007
on these same properties was approximately $1.1 million. Upon redevelopment, the proposed
project would generate over $7.8 million in property taxes.
Request for TIF Assistance
Given the substantial size of the proposed West End project (approximately 1.5 million square
feet of new office, hotel and retail space), Duke Realty will incur substantial extraordinary
development expenses (building demolition, soil corrections, and utility relocations). In
addition, significant on-and-off-site infrastructure improvements (i.e. roadways, intersection
improvements, medians, pedestrian connections, parking ramps and various utility work) will be
required in order for the project to proceed. While Duke is responsible for the majority of these
components, the project is not financially feasible without some public assistance to offset these
extraordinary and public costs. Staff is continuing to work with Duke representatives to
structure a financial assistance package that is both appropriate and mutually acceptable given
the complexity, quality, projected total value, and other residual economic benefits derived from
the proposed redevelopment. The EDA and City Council will have the opportunity to consider
the precise amount and uses of TIF assistance when a redevelopment contract with the
Redeveloper is formally presented in the coming weeks.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/Council reviewed the preliminary TIF application from Duke Realty at the March 26,
2007 study session. A Preliminary Development Agreement was approved on May 21, 2007 and
amended on September 4, 2007. Potential business terms for a full redevelopment contract were
discussed at the July 23rd and September 24th Study Sessions where they were favorably
received. At its October 1st meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November 19,
2007 for the proposed Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed The West End Tax Increment Financing Plan on November 7th
and found that it was in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan establishing The West End Tax Increment
Financing District (a redevelopment district).
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 6a) Page 4
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
The West End TIF District will consist of six (6) properties located at 1621 Park Place Bvld,
1551 Park Place Bvld, 5353 Wayzata Bvld, 5245 Wayzata Bvld, 5201 Wayzata Bvld and 1600
Utica Ave. A map of The West End TIF District is provided in the attached TIF Plan.
The subject site area is within the city’s Redevelopment Project Area which is statutorily
required. Inclusion of this project within a designated Redevelopment Project Area gives the
EDA/Council the authority to assist with all the redevelopment actions necessary to implement
The West End project.
Duration of the District
As authorized by statute, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of
the first increment by the city (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the
city of the first tax increment is expected to be 2010. Thus, it is estimated that the District would
terminate after 2036, or when the TIF plan is satisfied. The EDA and City have the right to
decertify the District prior to the legally required date. The city’s expressed goal with this
project is to retire the District after approximately 20 years.
TIF District Budget
It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds
section of the proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project
budget.
Fiscal Disparities Election
In keeping with the city’s TIF Policy, The West End TIF District will contribute to fiscal
disparities.
Results of TIF Feasibility Analysis
Staff retained (at Redeveloper’s expense) LHB, Inc. to conduct a state-required inspection to
determine if the proposed project qualified as a redevelopment TIF district. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 479.174, Subdivision 10 requires two tests for occupied parcels:
• That the parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.
• That more than 50 percent of the buildings located within the District are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance.
The inspection made the following determinations:
• 100 percent of the area of the district is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or
gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.
• Five (5) out of (8) buildings or 62.5 percent of the buildings located within the proposed
TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of
the proposed TIF District.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 6a) Page 5
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
LHB’s Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications Of A Tax
Increment Financing District As A Redevelopment District : Duke Redevelopment District, St.
Louis Park, MN dated August 1, 2007 concluded that the proposed TIF District met both the
“Coverage Test” and the “Condition of Buildings Test” and thus qualified under Minnesota
Statutes as a redevelopment TIF district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Authorizing the establishment of The West End TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City
to any specific level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply creates
the funding vehicle that enables the EDA and City Council to provide the Redeveloper with the
negotiated financial assistance. The City Council will have the opportunity to consider the
precise amount of TIF assistance when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is
formally presented in the coming weeks.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and
the focus area of creating community gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution
The West End TIF Plan (see 111907 EDA Item 7b)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 07-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1;
AND ESTABLISHING THE WEST END TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1
and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that
the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
"Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish The West End Tax Increment Financing
District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan")
therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively
herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all
inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have
caused the Plans to be prepared.
1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans,
including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District
No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of
and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, approval of the Plans by
the EDA on November 19, 2007, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as
required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings
and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, but is
however, modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor.
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public
interest and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby
incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a
"redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the
Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole;
and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority elects to calculate fiscal
disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3,
clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the
State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City
believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the Plan.
The developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially
feasible. As such, any private benefits received by the developer are incidental and do not
outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the
amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to
the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of
all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18
months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with
the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 19th day of November, 2007.
___________________________________
Mayor
___________________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
________________________________________
City Clerk
(Seal)
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 07-____
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan)
for The West End Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that The West End Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S.,
Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1).
The District consists of 6 parcels, containing 8 buildings. Parcels that make up 100 percent of the area of
the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings (5 out of 8) in the District, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. (See
Appendix F of the TIF Plan.). The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the District,
as shown in Appendix F of the TIF Plan.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum
duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The proposed development consists
of mixed-use facilities including approximately 1.1 million sq/ft of office, 400,000 sq/ft of retail and nearly
300 hotel units (including hotel units expected to constructed by a separate entity from the primary
developer, but which hotel would not be feasible without the infrastructure and other improvements to be
constructed by the primary developer receiving tax increment assistance). The redevelopment requires
acquisition, relocation of existing businesses and demolition of most of the existing buildings. Current
estimates of redevelopment costs include $2 million for demolition, $5 million for soil correction, $8
million for road and traffic improvements, and more than $20 million for structured parking related to the
retail component alone. It is not likely that any new development on this site is feasible without significant
traffic improvements, and development at the proposed level of density is not feasible without the
structured parking and related roadway improvements. Due to the high cost of financing all these
extraordinary redevelopment costs, the proposed development is feasible only through assistance, in part,
from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as
justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. (See
attachment in Appendix G of the TIF Plan, and detailed background materials on file in City Hall.)
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: The primary basis for this finding is that the entire area of the
TIF District is fully developed with commercial uses. As a practical matter, any new development that
would create new market value would require redevelopment, and any such redevelopment on a significant
scale (comparable to the proposed development) would encounter the same type of extraordinary costs
described above. Historically, redevelopment of similar fully-developed areas in St. Louis Park has been
Subject: Establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District
infeasible without tax increment assistance. In addition, while the property could be sold to another
developer for some other use, these scenarios are not feasible in the market due to various constraints. First
housing development is not feasible due to inadequate market location (adjacent to a freeway) and the
decline or stagnation of the current housing market (both condo and single-family). Second, the proposed
office development generates significantly more value than any other land use due to its multiple stories
and the fact that it is considered Class A office commanding a high market value; lesser density and quality
office development might be feasible, but that alternative would create lower market value than proposed
under this plan. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is
anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without
the use of tax increment financing is $0 (except for the potential for appreciation of existing value,
which is expected to be small in light of the substandard conditions in 5 of the 8 buildings).
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $259,791,325 (see
Appendix D and G of the TIF Plan)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted
by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $49,352,955 (see Appendix D and G of the TIF Plan).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no
alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $210,438,370 (the
amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs
of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private
enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the removal of substandard properties, and
construction of a dense large-scale private development that maximizes uses of this key site adjacent to two
freeways, thereby implementing important redevelopment goals for the City as a whole.
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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 an ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve first reading of proposed ordinance amendment to the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 32: Utilities, and set second reading for December 3, 2007.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Adoption of the ordinance amendment would allow staff to implement a new Water Utility Service Line
Replacement Policy which was developed for funding the replacement of privately owned water service
connections beneath City right-of-way. The service connections would be replaced in conjunction with
certain street reconstruction projects and paid through a surcharge on the consumer’s water bill.
BACKGROUND:
History
At the June 26, 2006 City Council Study Session, staff presented information to the Council with regards
to developing a policy requiring the replacement of privately owned water service connections beneath
the street right-of-way in conjunction with street reconstruction projects. In addition, information was
provided on different funding mechanisms available to pay for those water service line replacement costs.
A subsequent written report was provided to Council at their August 28, 2006 Study Session. The report
explains that the preferred funding mechanism would be through a surcharge added to the consumer’s
water bill. The surcharge would be added to the consumer’s water bill and be payable over a period of 10
years in equal installments, together with an amount equal to interest on the unpaid balance at a fixed
annual rate set by the City Finance Department equal to the special assessments interest rate adopted that
year. The report also explains the practice (restated below) that would be used in determining when to
replace aging water service lines beneath the City right-of-way.
A report was provided to Council at their November 13, 2007 Study Session providing an update on the
status and schedule of the ordinance amendment. The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance amending
the Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities (attached), which will allow charges to consumer’s water bills
for the purpose of recovering costs associated with the installation of new water service line connections
beneath the City right of way. Staff proposed a first reading of the ordinance amendment at the
November 19, 2007 City Council meeting and second reading at the December 3, 2007 City Council
meeting.
Proposed Practice
During the development of street reconstruction projects, staff thoroughly scopes the need for replacing
any aging underground utility that the city owns. With adoption of this policy, staff, during its scoping
process, would also identify the need to replace any aging water service connection lines beneath the city
right-of-way. The Utility Division’s asset management system has a history of all water service
connections attached to the city’s water main. If staff identifies a need to replace water service
connections on a particular proposed reconstruction project, this would be identified early in the plan
development process. Although the proposed policy could be used on any street reconstruction project,
staff’s intent is to use it on higher level streets and more extensive street reconstruction projects. In any
case, the City Council and affected property owners would be notified and allowed to comment during the
public involvement process associated with the project. If Council agrees with the need for water service
Meeting of November 19, 2007 - Item 8a Page 2
Subject: First reading of Ordinance amending St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities
line replacements, then staff will incorporate them into the plans and the Project Report to Council.
Council can then chose to approve the plans and order the project including this work or ask staff to
remove the work from the plans.
The proposed water service replacement practice would be only for replacing the service connection from
the watermain up to and including the water shut off valve which typically resides on the edge of the
right-of-way line. During the project development, it is likely that property owners will ask about
replacing their service connection all the way into their home or building. City practice is not to work on
private property. Staff will work with those interested residents to provide contact information on
contractors who perform this type of work so property owners may solicit their own contractors. Property
owners remain responsible for hiring the contractor of their choosing and handling their financial
obligations for the work performed on their property.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Amended Ordinance
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. _____-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 32: UTILITIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 32-41 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:
Sec. 32-41. Cost of installation borne by consumer.
(1) The cost of original installation or repair of all plumbing between the main and
the meter shall be borne entirely by the consumer. Such plumbing shall at all
reasonable times be subject to inspection by the city. Any repairs found to be
necessary by such representatives shall be made promptly or the city will
discontinue service.
(2) The cost of replacing all plumbing within the City right of way between the main
and the shut off as part of a street reconstruction project shall be a charge to the
consumer. The cost shall be added to the consumer’s water bill and be payable
over a period of 10 years in equal installments, together with an amount equal to
interest on the unpaid balance at a fixed annual rate set by the City Finance
Department equal to the special assessments interest rate adopted that year.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading November 19, 2007
Second Reading December 3, 2007
Date of Publication December 13, 2007
Date Ordinance takes effect December 28, 2007
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
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:
Ordinance Eliminating the Tobacco Smoke Testing and Disclosure Requirements for Licensed
Food and Beverage Establishments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance amendment deleting Section 8-258 (b) in its
entirety and set second reading for December 3, 2007
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
Following a task force recommendation, the city developed a program focused on education and
awareness of the hazards of second hand smoke. During 2003, the city adopted the ordinance
establishing a tobacco disclosure notice program for licensed food and beverage establishments.
The program was adopted before either the Hennepin County or current Minnesota State rules
limiting the smoking of tobacco products in restaurants and other public establishments.
Within a year after city implementation, Hennepin County passed an ordinance limiting smoking
in food and beverage establishments. The recent October 2007 implementation of the state-wide
rules prohibiting tobacco smoking has completely eliminated the need for retaining the tobacco
disclosure notice provisions in the city code. This ordinance is therefore a housekeeping action
to maintain clarity and accuracy in our city code.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Current Ordinance – Section 8-258 (b)
Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Sec. 8-258. Regulations and standards.
(b) Except for smoke-free establishments, all food and beverage licensees providing indoor seating
for consumption of prepared food and beverage products shall be subject to the following testing and
disclosure of environmental tobacco smoke requirements:
(1) A testing surcharge fee to be paid in addition to the regular license fee.
(2) Licensee shall allow the city or designated representative access to the licensed premises to
perform collection of air samples from the designated non-smoking section a minimum of three
times per year. Collection times will be randomly selected by the city and occur during the
establishments normal business hours. Two air samples of 100 liters each will be collected
simultaneously by equipment placed on tables or stands separated by a distance of not less then
half the distance of the area being sampled. The licensee shall ensure that the sampling
equipment is not disturbed or tampered with for the duration of the test.
(3) Collected samples will be laboratory analyzed for nicotine concentration using NIOSH
(National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health method 2544). The results of all samples
for each establishment will be averaged for the year. The resulting average nicotine
concentration will be identified in micrograms per cubic meter.
(4) Each establishment will be provided with a business specific disclosure notice(s) with the
annual license. The notice(s) shall be placed by the licensee on the inside of all transparent
entrance door(s) or sidelights into the establishment so as to be visible for the entering public
and employees. When no translucent material is present at the entrance door(s), then the
disclosure notice(s) shall be located on an interior side wall adjacent to the entrance door(s)
approved by the city as the most visible location for the entering public. Only a single sign is
needed for each entrance door or pair of doors when the doors are together. Each disclosure
notice shall identify the food and beverage establishment by name, disclosure to the public that
they may be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the non-smoking seating section, and
the average level of nicotine sampled. New disclosure notices will be issued for each calendar
year.
(5) Establishments shall make available public education pamphlets, supplied by the city,
providing information on environmental tobacco smoke and the disclosure notice. Pamphlets
shall be displayed on a wall or tabletop dispenser in an easily accessed location as near to each
disclosure notice as practically possible. The establishment is responsible to maintain a supply
of the pamphlets on display and must notify the city if additional pamphlets are needed.
(6) The public education pamphlets on environmental tobacco smoke and a training session
explaining the disclosure notice shall be provided to every employee by the licensee within
thirty days of the initial disclosure notice posting and at the time of hire for new employees.
(7) Establishments making substantial improvements in building design or mechanical operating
systems intended to reduce environmental tobacco smoke concentrations may request
additional samples be collected and any relevant improvement be identified with a revised
disclosure notice.
(8) In order for an establishment to be considered smoke free and exempt from the requirements, it
must prohibit the smoking of tobacco products within the building and have signage indicating
a non-smoking environment at all public entrances. Signage must include, but is not limited to,
the international non-smoking symbol with a minimum 3.5-inch cross dimension.
ORDINANCE NO. _____-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8-258 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES ELIMINATING
THE TOBACCO SMOKE TESTING AND DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSED FOOD
AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 8-258(b) of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is
hereby deleted in its entirety.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2007, by the City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:___________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Preliminary and Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition (2942 Boone Avenue South).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Fretham 9th Addition
with a subdivision variance for sidewalks.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving variances to the Zoning Ordinance permitting a lot width
of less than 85 feet and a lot area of less than 9,000 square feet.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The Subdivision Ordinance serves as the regulatory document for subdividing land. It includes
objective standards by which Staff evaluates a subdivision proposal. This is the second review
of this item. At the previous review, the City Council requested that the applicant make
modifications to the three lot configuration to improve the layout. The modifications resulted in
the need for three variances.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reviewed the applicant’s first proposal for subdivision at 2942 Boone Avenue
South on October 15, 2007. That proposal was for a subdivision of the property into three lots,
which met all the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
At the meeting, the Council directed Staff to work with the developer and the neighborhood to
improve the three-lot configuration. The developer provided several potential improvements and
scenarios for the configuration of the lots and reviewed them with the neighborhood on October
30, 2007. The neighborhood meeting resulted in a preference for particular design
considerations, including the elimination of sidewalk and trail from the proposal and the
installation of a boulder retaining wall along Minnetonka Boulevard. The neighborhood
attendees indicated that there was a preference for a two-lot configuration instead of three,
despite the understanding that three lots would be legally permitted. However, it also appeared
that the neighborhood residents preferred the lot configuration which required the variances if in
fact three lots were going to be permitted
The new three-lot configuration provides straight boundaries between the lots, which will
provide clearer property lines now and into the future. It also allows the house on Boone to be
set back further from the street. The configuration the neighborhood and Staff recommend
results in the request for the following variances:
• A lot width variance from the Zoning Ordinance for Lot 3, from a required 85 feet in
width to 73 feet in width. This variance enables an increased setback for the property
along Boone Avenue South. Though the Zoning Ordinance only requires a side yard
setback of 15 feet, this proposal will enable the developer to provide a minimum setback
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8c) Page 2
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition (2942 Boone Avenue South)
of 25 feet from the property line along Boone Avenue South. A condition has been
added to the resolution to enforce this requirement into the future.
• A lot area variance for Lot 1, from a required 9,000 square feet to 8,276 square feet. This
variance is required to accommodate the first variance, as the modified shape of Lot 3
requires more area. Staff worked with the developer to ensure that the size of Lot 2,
located along Minnetonka Boulevard, was the larger of the two lots along Cavell Avenue
South. By placing the larger lot adjacent to Minnetonka Boulevard, it will be possible to
place the house farther from Minnetonka than would have otherwise been possible.
• A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate the proposed sidewalk and trail.
The neighborhood indicated on several occasions that there was no interest in the
installation of new sidewalks on Boone, Cavell and Minnetonka. Staff reviewed the
existing Sidewalk and Trails Plan and the work being done currently on the plan’s
revisions, and determined it would be appropriate to vary from the typical requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance because there is no intent to create sidewalks or trails here
in the future.
The revised proposal submitted by the applicant meets all the requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances except those for which variances are requested. Staff finds that the
requested variances met the criteria set forth in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for
hardship and reasonableness. For this reason, Staff recommends approval. The criteria and the
details of how they have been met are included in the attached Staff report to the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the variances and the revised plat.
Comments included concerns about stormwater and a desire to have two lots rather than three.
Several Commissioners noted that it was difficult to recommend approval of variances when the
previous application met the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the revised plat with variances.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
One of the key elements of the city’s Vision and Strategic Directions is the commitment to
providing a diverse and well maintained housing stock; and, especially the opportunity for
“move-up” housing. The desire for providing a variety of housing and larger single family
homes for families is also echoed in the housing goals from the Housing Summit and approved
by the City Council in 2005. The proposed subdivision is an opportunity for three new single-
family homes to be built in St. Louis Park which could be “move-up homes” for existing
residents or opportunities for new families to move into St. Louis Park.
Attachments: Resolution granting variances from the Zoning Ordinance
Resolution approving Fretham 9th Addition with a Subdivision Variance
Location Map
Staff report from November 7th, 2007 Planning Commission meeting
Excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes from November 7th, 2007
Excerpt from the City Council minutes from the October 15th, 2007 meeting
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8c) Page 3
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition (2942 Boone Avenue South)
Original submittal of Fretham 9th Addition
Preliminary Plat of Fretham 9th Addition
Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition
Site plan for Fretham 9th Addition
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
VARIANCES
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 36-163 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A REDUCTION IN THE
WIDTH AND AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 2942 BOONE AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
1. Lakewest Development Co., LLC has applied for variances from Sections 36-163 of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a reduction in the width and area
requirements for property located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District at the
following location, to-wit:
the South 140.00 feet of the West 175.00 feet of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range
21, Hennepin County, Minnesota
and
Block 4, BELMONT TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. On November 7, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public and discussed the application for variances to reduce the area
requirement for Lot 1 and the width requirement for Lot 3.
3. The City Council finds that the variances will result in no negative effects to the health,
safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the
surrounding area, nor is the variance out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 07-44-S are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, these variances shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked,
or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variances are granted.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, these variances shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the variances are granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variances to permit a reduction in the required width for Lot 3 from 85
feet to 73 feet and the required area for Lot 1 from 9,000 square feet to 8,276 square feet is
granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT OF FRETHAM 9TH ADDITION
WITH VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
FOR SIDEWALK
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Estate of Robert Benjamin and Lakewest Development Co., LLC, owners and
subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Fretham 9th Addition have submitted an
application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision with a variance from the
subdivision ordinance for sidewalk (Section 26-153) in the manner required for platting of land
under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
the South 140.00 feet of the West 175.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
and
Block 4, BELMONT TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land. The existing conditions on the site do not include any sidewalk
or trail on either Boone or Cavell Avenues; therefore, a sidewalk would not connect to any other
sidewalk or trail. Further, Hennepin County is constructing a trail on the south side of
Minnetonka Boulevard. The County does not expect to build a trail along the north side of
Minnetonka Boulevard at this time.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The
granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
injurious to any surrounding properties.
6. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship.
The requested variance will remove the requirement for sidewalk and trail, which is unnecessary
and undesirable based on the existing site and neighborhood conditions.
7. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does not call for the construction of sidewalks or trails in this location, nor
is it anticipated that future Comprehensive Plan updates will designate this area for sidewalk or
trails.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Fretham 9th Addition is hereby
approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and
Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. A variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance requirement for
the construction of a sidewalk or trail, as required by City Code,
Section 26-153.
b. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing the
final plat.
c. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing the
final plat.
d. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow
or letter of credit in the amount of $1000 to insure that a Mylar copy of
the final plat is provided.
e. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or
letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement,
public improvements, landscaping and repair/cleaning of public streets
and utilities.
f. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been
fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as
required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be
conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials
charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
29TH ST WMINNETONKA BLVDCAVELL AVE SBOONE AVE SAQUILA AVE SCAVELL AVE SFretham 9th Addition - Subdivision Request2942 Boone Avenue South
$
September 19, 2007
3X
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
150 Feet
R-1
R-1
POS
POS
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 1
3A. Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Location: 2942 Boone Avenue South
Case No.: 07-44-S
Recommended
Action:
Chair to close public hearing
Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat
with variances, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is a recommendation of approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat with variances. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide a single lot into three residential lots. The existing house
would be removed.
This is a revised request. It includes adjustments to lot lines as requested by the City Council.
The intent is to create better lots by configuring them to fit in with the existing neighborhood.
This results in a plat that continues to have three lots. However, they are reconfigured, and
therefore require variances.
There are three variances requested. One variance is from the Subdivision Ordinance and is a
request to vary from the requirement that a sidewalk be constructed around all public street
frontages. Other variances are from the Zoning Ordinance, and are a request to permit a lot of
less than 9,000 square feet and a request to permit a lot of less than 75 feet in width in the R-1
Zoning District.
Background:
The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant’s proposal on September 19th, 2007. The
application was then considered by the City Council on October 17th. The City Council has
referred the application back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the
plans be changed to improve the site layout. The City Council was informed that it was likely
variances would be required to modify the layout.
Prior to the second Planning Commission review, an additional neighborhood meeting was held
to discuss the solutions put forth by the developer. Neighborhood reaction is discussed below.
There were 14 residents present at the meeting, which was held on October 30th.
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 2
The developer has proposed solutions to several of the issues. To improve the layout for the
various lots, lot lines were adjusted for Lot 3 to create right angles within the lot instead of a
varying line. Adjusting the lines permits the house along Boone Avenue South to be set back
further from the street than in the previous layout. The lot line was also adjusted between Lots 1
and 2 by moving it several feet to the north, which will permit the house on Lot 2 to be located
further from Minnetonka Boulevard.
On several occasions neighbors have noted that there are frequent car accidents into the existing
lawn of the property under consideration. To reduce the potential for future accidents, the
developer has included a row of boulders that would be placed along Minnetonka Boulevard.
Including this as a preventative measure was voluntary and not required by the City’s
Engineering Staff. However, it can be included as a condition of approval.
Another major concern of the neighbors was parking along Cavell Avenue South. The developer
added turnarounds to the driveways on Lots 1 and 2, with the intent that the turnaround area
would allow additional off-street parking. The houses to be built on Lots 1 and 2 would then be
able to accommodate two cars in the garage and three cars parked outside the garage.
The variances require an additional public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Neighborhood Concerns:
Representatives from the neighborhood were present to discuss the applicant’s proposed ideas at
the meeting on October 30th. As noted above, the applicant revised the plans at the direction of
the City Council to improve the site layout and relationship to the surroundings; it was discussed
at the City Council meeting on October 17th that the applicant was not willing to consider a two
lot solution, although that was the preference of many neighbors.
The neighbors with specific concerns about the site noted that many of the changes improved the
project’s layout. However, neighbors still consider it preferable to accomplish the project based
on a two lot versus a three lot scenario.
Subdivision Analysis:
The subdivision analysis remains largely the same as was previously considered by the Planning
Commission at its September 19th meeting. For that reason, the analysis here considers only the
modifications that have been proposed to the plat. The Staff report and draft minutes from the
October 15th City Council meeting and draft minutes from the September 17th Planning
Commission meeting are attached for review.
Subdivision Variance
At the direction of the City Council, the applicant has requested a variance to the subdivision
requirement of Section 26-153 “Streets and Alleys” that states “Sidewalks or multipurpose
trailways shall be provided on both sides of all public streets whether existing or new.” The
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 3
applicant is willing to construct the sidewalk and trail, but will not do so if the Planning
Commission and City Council determine that sidewalk and trail is inappropriate in this location.
For subdivision variances, the Subdivision Ordinance requires review of the following criteria:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that
the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
The existing conditions on the site do not include any sidewalk or trail on either
Boone or Cavell Avenues; therefore, a sidewalk would not connect to any other
sidewalk or trail. Further, Hennepin County is constructing a trail on the south side
of Minnetonka Boulevard. The County does not expect to build a trail along the
north side of Minnetonka Boulevard at this time.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property
is situated.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or injurious to any surrounding properties.
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical
hardship such as topography, etc.
The requested variance will remove the requirement for sidewalk and trail, which is
unnecessary and undesirable based on the existing site and neighborhood conditions.
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan does not call for the construction of sidewalks or trails in
this location, nor is it anticipated that future Comprehensive Plan updates will
designate this area for sidewalk or trails.
Staff recommends that the subdivision variance be included in the motion recommending
approval.
Zoning Analysis:
Proposed Use:
Single family dwellings are permitted in the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District. After
subdivision, there would be three buildable lots.
Lot Area:
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 4
The property is approximately 29,000 square feet in size. The minimum required lot size in the
R-1 Single Family Zoning District is 9,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to split the
property into the following three lots:
Lot 1 – 8,276 square feet.
Lot 2 – 9,198 square feet.
Lot 3 – 9,567 square feet.
Lot 1 does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area, so a variance is requested. The
variance request is discussed below.
Lot Width:
The minimum lot width in the R-1 Zoning District is 75 feet, except for corner lots, where 85
feet is required. Lot widths at the setback line are as follows:
Lot 1 – 81 feet along Cavell Avenue South.
Lot 2 – 112 feet along Cavell Avenue South.
Lot 3 – 73 feet along Minnetonka Boulevard.
Lots 1 and 2 meet the minimum requirements for lot width. The minimum requirement for Lot 3
is 85 feet in width, and only 73 feet is required. For that reason, a variance is requested to
reduce the minimum required width by 12 feet. The variance is discussed below.
Setback Requirements:
The applicant has indicated an ability to construct homes meeting the setback requirements of
the R-1 Zoning District.
Zoning Variance Requests:
Requested are two variances:
• Lot 1: A reduction from the lot size requirement of 9,000 square feet, to a minimum size
of 8,276 square feet.
• Lot 3: A reduction from the lot width requirement of 85 feet, to a minimum width of 73
feet.
Variances shall be granted only provided that the following evaluation criteria from the City
Code, Section 36-33 “Application and review process for conditional use permits and variances,”
can be satisfactorily answered:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located.
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 5
The applicant is able to provide a subdivision proposal meeting the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. However, to improve the proposal, several lot line modifications have
been suggested. The existing lot is of sufficient size; however, strict application of the
requirements will result in lot peculiarities and is undesirable for the long term development
of the area.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property
or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or
structures in the use district in which the land is located.
The conditions applying to the property at 2942 Boone Avenue South are imposed upon it as
the result of two factors: a high level of vehicular traffic along Minnetonka Boulevard and an
unusual pattern of house setbacks along Boone Avenue South. These unusual conditions
result in the requested improvements to the site plan, which require variances from the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant has provided application materials meeting the Zoning Ordinance, making
clear to the City that a three lot subdivision is possible on the site. The substantial property
right in question is the ability to subdivide into three lots; as it has been proven that this
property right can be met without variances, it is appropriate to grant variances to improve
the site plan based on the future health, safety and welfare of the community.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
The granting of the proposed variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variances will permit the development of a three lot subdivision, which
the developer has already proven possible without the variances. The granting of the
variances continues this right and improves the impacts of the subdivision upon the
surrounding area.
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 6
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
chapter and the comprehensive plan.
The granting of the proposed variances is not contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
which is to “protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general
welfare of the people.” Neither are they contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan,
which permits construction at a density not to exceed seven units per acre in this area; the
proposed development will be constructed at a density of approximately 4.8 units per acre.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
These variances are not a convenience to the applicant, as they are not necessary for the
applicant to proceed based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the
variances do improve the overall site plan and decrease the future potential for difficulties by
the property owners resulting from lot lines that are not at 90 degree angles to one another.
Variance recommendation
The proposed variances meet the criteria of the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the
variances.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends a motion to recommend approval, as follows:
Preliminary and Final Plat with variances, with the following conditions:
1. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
2. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing the final plat.
3. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of $1000 to insure that a Mylar copy of the final plat is provided.
4. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, public improvements, landscaping
and repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities.
5. No building permit shall be issued for a structure set closer than 25’ from the property
line along Boone Avenue South.
6. A 10’ public trail easement shall be provided to the City, running the full length of the
property along Minnetonka Boulevard, prior to filing the final plat.
7. A subdivision variance is provided to eliminate the requirement that sidewalks or trails
be constructed around all sides of the site.
8. A zoning variance is provided for the lot area requirement on Lot 1, reducing the required
lot size from 9,000 square feet to 8,276 square feet for Lot 1 only.
City of St. Louis Park
Planning Commission Agenda Item 3A
Meeting of November 7, 2007
Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 7
9. A zoning variance is provided for the lot width requirement on Lot 3, reducing the
required lot width from 85 feet to 73 feet for Lot 3 only.
10. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of
this approval.
Attachments: Location map
Staff Report from the October 15, 2007 City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes, September 17, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting
Draft Minutes, October 15, 2007 City Council Meeting
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Revised Survey and Site Plans
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Excerpts - Draft
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
Nov. 7, 2007
3. Hearings
A. Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat with Variances
Location: 2942 Boone Avenue South
Applicant: Lakewest Development Co., LLC
Case No.: Case No. 07-44-S
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report and project history. The
developer made modifications to address concerns by the neighborhood including
the parking turn around and adding a four-foot boulder wall lining the property
from Boone Avenue along Minnetonka Blvd, behind the proposed trail easement
by the County. That would minimize the possibility of cars crashing into the
homes.
Commissioner Morris asked if the front yard on Lots 1 and 2 faced Cavell.
Mr. Fulton replied yes.
Commissioner Morris asked if the zoning code prohibited parking at the front of a
building. Mr. Fulton replied no, the zoning code does not prohibit parking of a
single car. There are restrictions in the zoning code for parking of RVs and
commercial vehicles in front of a building.
Commissioner Morris believed the code allowed parking in the driveway, but past
the front building line, with a driveway, which was considered transitional. He
wasn’t certain the code allowed them to create a front yard parking area. Mr.
Fulton replied he could not reference the particular section of the code, but would
provide that if requested.
Commissioner Morris commented that previous neighborhood testimony
concerned the curve of Minnetonka Blvd. and cars going too fast could careen
through the triangular area at Cavell and pass over Cavell into a tree area. If there
was a traffic safety issue, typically there is a crash barrier intended to deflect the
vehicle and slow it down. He would rather see a barrier than a boulder wall,
which would be safer for drivers.
Mr. Fulton replied that the City Engineer reviewed this and determined it was not
necessary. The developer was adding it to address neighborhood concerns. It is a
County road and the City does not have the ability to put in a barrier without
County review. Because the City Engineer determined it was not necessary, it
was likely the County would determine the same. The boulders were seen as a
reasonable solution. It was discussed at the neighborhood meeting and the
neighborhood was not interested in a guard barrier.
Mr. Fulton reviewed the variances and completed the presentation of the staff
report.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, stated they could talk about
the parking and asked for clarification of the question about parking not being
allowed in the front yard of single-family homes.
Commissioner Morris recalled that when the City proposed a parking ordinance
no vehicles could park on a parking area designated in the front yard of a house.
It would prohibit putting a parking pad at a right angle to a driveway at the front
of the house or from parking a vehicle back of the sidewalk on the front portion of
the lawn.
Commissioner Robertson added there is a maximum or average width of
driveway and adding a parking area could exceed that. He thought it was a 22 ft.
average. He commented that it looked like those parking areas might push out the
average width of those driveways and another variance would be needed.
Mr. Fulton replied these were hypothetical plans and the applicant was showing
what could be done. There are no building permits before them and a building
permit would be handled administratively. The applicant’s intent was to show
they could provide parking in that location. There was no curb cut permit. He
read the relevant code section that no more than three vehicles can be parked or
stored outside an enclosed building at a single family residence. Other portions of
the code discuss restrictions on non-passenger vehicles. The restrictions are set
up predominantly to prohibit storage of trailers and things like RVs being stored.
The driveway requirement of 22 feet is not extraordinarily wide. You can’t have
a functional driveway with a two-car garage and have something parked like that.
The width of that could prohibit that in the future. The requirement is the 22-feet
maximum average over the entire width and 30% of the front yard could be
paved.
Commissioner Morris stated he understood they were not looking at a building design
or a lot layout. This was strictly a land subdivision and platting issue. He brought it
up because he didn’t want neighborhood expectations that it could be done.
Commissioner Carper indicated one of the things staff discussed was getting 90°
angled lot lines. Other subdivisions have been before the Commission that were
very angular and not right angles. He asked why staff feels this is advantageous
and allows the applicant to amend what is normally expected in terms of lots,
widths and square footage?
Ms. McMonigal replied generally in laying out subdivisions, clear property lines
are advantageous for future property owners. The jogged lines make it difficult to
tell where the property line is located. Another reason was so the home on Lot 3
could be set back further as was requested by neighbors because the homes
further to the north are set back further.
Commissioner Carper asked if this would set a precedent and if they had authorized
subdivision of lots so the resulting lots were less than the 9,000 square foot minimum
and allowed them to reduce the widths of the boundaries required.
Ms. McMonigal replied staff had not researched whether it had been done in St. Louis
Park, but from her experience working on subdivisions, it was very common to create
the lots a little bit differently than the code allowed in a situation like this if it made
for a better subdivision and better placement of the homes.
Commissioner Carper asked if other Commissioners were aware of similar situations.
Commissioner Robertson stated not long ago there was a proposal for a lot split
that required the seven criteria, rather than the four and there was also the need to
prove a hardship. It was odd to say there was a hardship that prevented the
enjoyment of this property when they had already approved a proposal that didn’t
have variances. He said this was a very odd request and he was not approving
variances just to straighten out a line when it wasn’t necessary.
Chair Johnston Madison opened the public hearing.
Bonnie Quinn, 2930 Cavell, felt the issue of drainage had not been addressed.
There has been a history of drainage issues on Cavell that had been dealt with
satisfactorily by the City to this point. A water main recently burst and all the
water goes to the west. She was concerned if there were more driveways and
more impervious surface, there would more drainage and she would like the City
Engineer to look at the drainage. They presently don’t have water in their garage
and she was concerned with more driveways, they would have problems.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the City Engineer had reviewed this and noted the
existing storm water system serving this part of the city had sufficient capacity to
handle the additional homes.
Ms. Quinn noted the property on the other side of proposed Lot 1 was denied
permission to expand a few years ago because the City said it would create water
problems on Cavell. She didn’t understand why the City would deny one request
and not the other.
Curt Fretham, applicant, commented that the rearrangement on the lot lines came
from one primary reason to try to move the house on Boone Avenue further west
to closer match the houses on the street. The only way they could move the house
further back was to move the lot line further back, which became a straight line.
Steve Shelerud, 2910 Cavell, noted the water drainage was to the west, not the east as
pointed out in the plan. A main broke and there was water on Cavell and it flowed to
the west. He didn’t doubt there was adequate storm water runoff to accommodate
that, but the point of water running to the east was inaccurate.
Ms. McMonigal replied she didn’t believe staff stated which way it ran. The City
Engineer understood that it ran to the west.
Ron Hasselmann, 2850 Cavell, asked about parking and if they could park in front
of houses.
Mr. Fulton replied that was correct.
Mr. Hasselmann stated because of the water main that burst, a truck has been
parked in front of Lot 2, making it difficult to turn. If cars are parked there,
driving along Cavell at 35 mph was hazardous to make the turn and a safety issue.
Parking was an issue. He felt the applicant should consider two lots instead of
three. The applicant wouldn’t lose that much money and the houses would be
more in keeping with the style of neighborhood. Now they will be houses of
lesser value and inconsistent with the neighborhood. He said he thought this was
a terrible mistake.
Commissioner Morris clarified the parking the Commission was discussing was
on the property, not on the street. The plan was not to have cars parked on the
street. It was to develop a parking space in the front lawn of the building that
would not interfere with street parking. Mr. Fulton clarified that staff brought up
during the neighborhood meetings that Cavell Avenue would be a good candidate
for parking restrictions on one side because it is narrow. The neighborhood
indicated they were not interested in parking restrictions. If the neighborhood
wanted restrictions, they could petition the City Engineer and signage would be
installed after approval by the City Council.
Chair Johnston Madison closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper asked why the City wasn’t requiring a sidewalk.
Mr. Fulton replied the developer was willing to install a sidewalk. Not installing
sidewalks was a request of the neighborhood, the Planning Commission and the
City Council. Upon closer review, the sidewalks wouldn’t lead anywhere. The
County and City are working to install a trail on the south side of Minnetonka Blvd.
The County has no intention of running a trail on the north side, so there was no
need for a trail in this location.
Commissioner Carper asked about crosswalk locations.
Mr. Fulton replied it would be advisable for people to cross at a street or they could
travel to the east to the underpass being finished by the County.
Ms. McMonigal added pedestrians could cross Minnetonka to use the trail on the south
side. Crossing at an intersection was preferable.
Commissioner Morris stated the last time this was before the Commission he
voted for the preliminary plat because what was presented met the code, was
within the land subdivision requirements and did not require any variances.
Coming back with a second design that did not meet the code and required
variances wasn’t logical. The land subdivision ordinance they adopted included
the need to add sidewalks and trails, not withstanding what side of the street it
was on. The intent was that provision would last for decades and as the City
developed they would create an interlocking sidewalk trail system. They were
currently going at it one piece at a time and determining they didn’t work because
there wasn’t a sidewalk there, which was contrary to why they adopted the
subdivision ordinance. They wanted the sidewalks there and eventually they
would establish a sidewalk system within the City. A few times he voted in favor
of the variance were when it was geographically nonsensical to put in a sidewalk.
Because there was going to be a trail on the other side of the street and to cross
the street to the sidewalk, was not logical. He did not support that variance.
Commissioner Carper asked if the Commission recalled giving variances to
property owners with small lot sizes and he recalled denying variances for side
lots and square footage of lots based on the configuration to the lots. He didn’t see
any logic to approving the variance for lot size. There is enough land to create
two legal parcels. They had enough land to create three legal parcels. To give a
variance to make a lot smaller, so they can have three isn’t logical. The three lots
can meet code. Notwithstanding what was brought to them at the City Council
meeting, he wasn’t sure the developer was trying to make the changes as much as
they were trying to accommodate the Council’s view of what the lots should look
like. He didn’t see a hardship to create three lots because they could be made into
three lots legally without a variance and it can certainly be made into two lots
with the only economic hardship to the developer was one extra house. He did
not support the variance requests. There is a discussion about the house and the
driveway, but they were not talking about the building, they were talking to a
developer who wanted to subdivide land and then determine what kind of a
building could go inside that land. If they had a plan before them of the types of
buildings that would be constructed on the lots, they would have a more logical
reason to prove or disprove the variances, but they didn’t know what was going to
go on the lots. He didn’t like the concept of building parking pads in front of
house to accommodate off-street parking. He said he didn’t support the current
version of the plat.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked staff to clarify that the Commission was hearing
this again because the developer was asked to accommodate some of the
neighborhood concerns about the previous subdivision. In spite of the variances
and parking, it sounded like Commissioners were giving the impression they were
beating up on staff for putting this together. If they were going to take some of
the properties and try to adjust them, this was the process at work. The developer
brought in a plan, the residents were not happy with it. City Council asked them
to take a step back and look at what could be reworked and come back with
something else, which was what they did. The Commission should consider these
were the types of adjustments they would have to make in a fully developed
neighborhood. She would not criticize on Lot 3 the fact that the developer had
come up with a plan to accommodate neighbor concerns about a house being too
far forward in line with the rest of the houses. They did exactly what was asked
and she saw that as a positive, not a negative.
Commissioner Robertson said between the two proposals, being that this one has
variances and the other one didn’t, he preferred the first proposal. To recommend
denial of this, was not recommending denial of subdividing the lot into three
parcels. He supported the previous proposal and didn’t want to send the message
that he didn’t think the developer shouldn’t be able to develop this lot into three
parcels. He asked where are they at on the process?
Ms. McMonigal explained that the developer submitted a plan that met the letter of
the law. When it was reviewed through the process, they had two neighborhood
meetings and the neighbors said they preferred two lots. It was understood that
three lots fit on this property. It then became a matter of putting three lots on this
property in the best possible configuration. Staff and the developer went back to
create alternatives to do that and part of it was to straighten out the lot lines and to
improve the location of the home on Lot 3. Staff thought this was a better
configuration for a subdivision. There are three lots, reconfigured differently. They
thought it helped the neighborhood.
Commissioner Kramer asked what was the next step if this was denied?
Ms. McMonigal replied the recommendation would go forward to the City
Council.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the City Council would go back to reexamining
the first proposal or would they look at this proposal and see that Planning
Commission recommended denial and deny it?
Ms. McMonigal replied she couldn’t speak for the City Council. They would
look at this proposal and make a decision accordingly with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Kramer agreed with parts of what everyone had said. He would
like to have parts of the first approval combined with parts of this one. He agreed
about the sidewalks and thought they should keep them. The lot line realignment
made sense, but he didn’t agree with all of the plan. He appreciated the work that
had been done between the neighbors, the developer and City staff. Parts of this
were an improvement.
Commissioner Robertson said he didn’t like any of this proposal. He didn’t
think this was an improvement to approve a variance when it was not necessary.
Regarding moving the first house more in line with the other houses, there was
also the argument of having the corner house as a unique house. Having the
house a little further out might create more of a buffer from Minnetonka Blvd to
the rest of the houses. He would like to keep the sidewalks. He had no problem
with the other configuration. He fully supported the previous proposal and would
vote against this. He didn’t want the message to go to the City Council that he
didn’t think the developer should develop this lot into three lots. He fully thought
it should.
Commissioner Carper said they were setting a dangerous precedent by
configuring lots less than 9,000 square feet, it was a slippery slope. The next one
comes and they will be five feet less than this and they get smaller and smaller.
People denied before could come back and ask for another review because they
were being inconsistent. He would recommend denying this.
Commissioner Person asked why it wouldn’t be possible if Lot 2 remained
exactly 9,000 sq. ft. and why it wouldn’t be possible to build a house on it, that
met most or all the concerns of the neighborhood and Planning Commission. As
was pointed out, the drawing was hypothetical in terms of the houses that were
placed on the lots. They have no idea what would be built on the lots.
Chair Johnston Madison commented she didn’t have a problem with Lot 3 and the
setback. She did have a problem with Lot 1 and that it didn’t meet code of the
square footage. From that standpoint she would vote no.
Commissioner Robertson stated as he looked at this, from what he heard at the
last Planning Commission meeting, these changes didn’t really address any of the
neighborhood concerns and they hadn’t solved their issues. He was frustrated
with the politics and couldn’t accept the modification. The first proposal was
good and met City code, now it had come back modified in a way they couldn’t
accept and he didn’t like seeing it go that way.
Commissioner Kramer would have to vote against this, even though there were
parts that he liked. He disagreed with Commissioner Robertson that this did not
meet some of the neighborhoods concerns. Because it was all or nothing, he
would vote against it. He hoped there would be a third try where they could solve
everything. He thought they could do three lots and there was a way to make
everyone happy. He wanted to be technically correct and make sure the residents
were satisfied.
Ms. McMonigal noted at the last neighborhood meeting they talked about how to
characterize the comments at the neighborhood meeting and the neighbors
preferred two lots under a three lot configuration. There were some things about
this rearrangement some people felt were improved. They thought the layout was
improved. There was a strong feeling not to have sidewalks. They liked the idea
of adding the boulder wall.
Commissioner Person asked about the storm water where it says that the City
Engineer felt this would accommodate the construction of two new homes, was
that a misstatement?
Ms. McMonigal replied no, there is an existing home, so two additional new
homes.
Commissioner Person stated it was his understanding that the existing home
would be demolished.
Ms. McMonigal responded yes, but there was a certain amount of impervious
surface at the time that was being accommodated. The addition would be two
new homes.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final
Plat with variances.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion recommending denial
passed on a vote of 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 15, 2007
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil
Finkelstein, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Inspections Administrative Supervisor (Ms. Boettcher),
Assistant Planner (Mr. Fulton) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
* * * * *
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Preliminary and Final Plat of Fretham 9th Addition (2942 Boone
Avenue South).
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Councilmember Paprocki suggested a continuation so staff, the developer and
neighborhood representatives could discuss other options for the configuration of
the subdivision. Councilmember Basill agreed.
Curt Fretham, 15400 Highway 7, Minnetonka, stated he would be happy to work
with staff and the neighborhood to improve the lots in the three-lot configuration.
Mayor Jacobs asked if there was any type of deadline. Mr. Fulton indicated that
the 60-day deadline was October 19, but it could be extended an additional 60
days.
A resident stated concern with the number of accidents at the location and stated
the police department has no record of incidents that have occurred there. She
further felt that if a house were put there, it would eventually have a car through
it.
Steve Shelerud, 2910 Cavell Avenue, thanked staff and Council for their time in
reviewing the property.
A resident stated the County has knowledge of the accidents at this location.
Barbara McAdams, 8745 Minnetonka Avenue, stated she had witnessed several
accidents.
Mr. Harmening suggested moving the north/south lot line of Lot 3 to the west,
which would require a lot area variance.
Ms. McMonigal reiterated that Council’s direction was to have staff and the
developer work toward a better design for the three lot configuration and work
with neighborhood representatives at a future neighborhood meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Sanger,
to postpone consideration of the preliminary and final plat of Fretham 9th
Addition.
The motion passed 6-0.
Original Submittal
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Site Plan
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital related to 3515 Belt
Line Blvd. (the EDI site).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Early Start Agreement between the City and Park
Nicollet Methodist Hospital.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council approve the proposed Early Start Agreement between the City and Park
Nicollet Methodist Hospital so as to allow Park Nicollet to commence sitework on 3515 Belt Line
Blvd. prior to closing on the land conveyance?
BACKGROUND:
The City, the EDA, United Properties and Park Nicollet have executed a Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract dated as of September 4, 2007. Pursuant to this Contract, the parties
planned to close on the conveyance of the "Redevelopment Property", which is part of a parcel of
land known as the "Bass Lake Property", on November 15, 2007, provided that certain
conditions were met. One of these conditions was the filing and recording of a plat of the Bass
Lake Property before closing. Due to unforeseen delays, the plat is currently still under final
review by Hennepin County and has not yet been recorded. The parties are unable to move
forward with closing on the land conveyance until the plat is recorded, but Park Nicollet wishes
to begin excavation and earth work on the Redevelopment Property as soon as possible during
the week of November 19. Therefore, Park Nicollet has requested an Early Start Agreement to
allow it to enter the Redevelopment Property and begin its excavation activities pending
recording of the plat and closing on conveyance of the Redevelopment Property. As noted in the
attached agreement, matters relating to insurance, indemnification etc. are covered As a side
note, a similar agreement was entered into with TOLD Development Company during the
Excelsior and Grand project build out.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 2
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Properly addressing the impacted soils on the subject site and developing it as agreed to in the
Redevelopment Contract is consistent with the Strategic Directions of Vision St. Louis Park as it
relates to environmental stewardship and community gathering places as well as the city’s
Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Attachments: Resolution
Early Start Agreement
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 3
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING EARLY START AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY AND PARK NICOLLET METHODIST HOSPITAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) have heretofore entered into a Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract (the “Contract”) between the Authority, the City, United Properties
Investment LLC, and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital (“Park Nicollet”).
1.02. Pursuant to the Contract, the City will convey certain property legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Redevelopment Property”) to the Authority, and the Authority will
convey the Redevelopment Property to Park Nicollet for development as a medical facility.
1.03. Park Nicollet desires to enter the Redevelopment Property before the date of closing
on the conveyance of such property for the purpose of constructing utilities and undertaking
excavation, and requests that the City enter into an early start agreement with Park Nicollet (“Early
Start Agreement”) for such purpose.
1.04. The City finds and determines that entering into the Early Start Agreement is in the
public interest because it will further the objectives of the Contract and allow for the timely
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property.
Section 2. Contract Approved.
2.01. The Council hereby approves the Early Start Agreement as presented to the Council,
and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute such Early Start Agreement in substantially
the form on file with the City, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the
transaction and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the Early Start Agreement
by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 4
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
Exhibit A
Redevelopment Property
That part of the following described property:
Parcel 1:
Block 1 and that part of Block 2 lying Southeasterly of the Southeasterly line of Belt Line
Boulevard. Also that part of Block 7 lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly line of Monterey Dr.
Westmoreland Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
A tract of land 40 feet in width lying immediately north of and adjacent to the northerly lines of
Blocks 1 and 2, Westmoreland Park and lying easterly of the Southeasterly line of Belt Line
Boulevard.
Together with the following described vacated right-of-ways:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
A tract of land lying southeasterly of a line 40.00 feet northerly of, measured at a right angle to, and
parallel with the north line of Westmoreland Park, that lies easterly of the southeasterly line of Belt
Line Boulevard and westerly of the northerly extension of the easterly line of Block 1, said plat.
AND
That part of the Right-of-ways originally dedicated in the plat of Westmoreland Park, Hennepin
County, Minnesota described and follows:
That part of 36 1/2 Street which lies easterly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive and west of
the centerline of Natchez Avenue;
AND
That part of Ottawa Avenue, which lies northerly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive and
south of the north line of said plat;
AND
That part of Natchez Avenue, which lies northerly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive and
south of the north line of said plat;
AND
The alley contained within Block 1 of said plat;
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 5
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
AND
Those parts of the alleys contained within Block 2 of said plat lying easterly and southerly of the
southeasterly line of Belt Line Boulevard;
AND
That part of the alley contained within Block 7 of said plat lying northerly of the northeasterly line
of Monterey Drive.
Lying Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00
degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds West, along the East line of said Parcel 2, being the East line of the
West 25 feet of Natchez Avenue, a distance of 511.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North
86 degrees 07 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 278.24 feet; thence North 79 degrees 14
minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 127.81 feet; thence North 66 degrees 00 minutes 34 seconds
West a distance of 104.21 feet to the Southeasterly right-of-way line of Belt Line Boulevard and
said line there terminating.
To be platted as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Melrose Institute
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 6
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
EARLY START AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made on this 19th day of November, 2007, by and between THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and PARK
NICOLLET METHODIST HOSPITAL, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Redeveloper”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City, United
Properties Investment LLC and the Redeveloper have entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract dated as of September 4, 2007 (the "Contract") for the redevelopment of certain property in
the City described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, under the Contract, the City will transfer title to the Redevelopment Property,
on which property Redeveloper is obligated to construct certain improvements described in the
Contract as the “Minimum Improvements”; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.2 of the Contract contains certain conditions for conveyance of the
Redevelopment Property to Redeveloper, including the condition that the plat creating the
Redevelopment Property (Plat”) must be filed of record with Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the Plat has not been filed of record and therefore a necessary condition of
conveyance of the Redevelopment Property has not been satisfied, but Redeveloper desires to
commence construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property prior to the
transfer of title of such property to Redeveloper; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and their mutual promises the parties
hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. Early Entry. The City hereby authorizes Redeveloper and its agents, employees,
contractors, and invitees to enter upon the Redevelopment Property for the sole purpose of
constructing utilities and undertaking excavation for the Minimum Improvements.
2. Indemnification of City. Redeveloper agrees to and shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any action, claim,
damage, liability, loss, cost or expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs)
resulting from: (a) any liens which may be attached to the Redevelopment Property for labor or
materials provided by or at the request of Redeveloper; (b) injury to or death of persons; (c)
property damage; (d) any claim, damage, action, loss or destruction whatsoever caused by
Redeveloper's agents or contractors in connection with Redeveloper's entry onto the Redevelopment
Property pursuant to this Agreement; or (e) diminution in the value of the Redevelopment Property
in the event that for any reason Redeveloper does not purchase the Redevelopment Property.
3. Covenant by Redeveloper. Without limiting in any way the agreements of
Redeveloper contained in Section 2 above, Redeveloper hereby unconditionally covenants to the
City that (a) Redeveloper will promptly pay all amounts due for all labor and materials relating to
work undertaken upon the Redevelopment Property pursuant to this Agreement, and (b) if any
contractor or subcontractor shall file a mechanics lien against the Redevelopment Property in
connection with work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, Redeveloper will, within five (5)
business days of the request of the City, deposit with the Hennepin District Court funds in an
amount sufficient to cause such lien to be released in accordance with applicable law.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 7
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
4. Insurance. Before commencing any work on the Redevelopment Property,
Redeveloper or its contractors shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance demonstrating that
Redeveloper or its contractors have obtained the insurance coverage required under the Contract and
showing the City as an additional named insured. Such certificates shall contain a statement that the
insurance coverage shall not be changed or canceled without at least thirty (30) days prior written
notice to the City. Certificates of insurance shall be signed by an authorized representative of each
insurer and all coverage shall be written on policy forms and by insurers acceptable to the City.
5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and be
governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
6. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts and sections of this
License Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in
construing and interpreting any of its provisions.
7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
8. Amendment. This License Agreement may be amended by the parties hereto only
by written instrument executed in accordance with the same procedures and formality followed for
the execution of this Agreement.
9. No Property Interest. The parties agree that this Agreement is personal to
Redeveloper and does not constitute an ownership interest or lien interest in the Redevelopment
Property. This Agreement is not saleable or assignable by Redeveloper.
10. No Estoppel. Redeveloper agrees that the City shall not be estopped by this
Agreement, nor any action taken by Redeveloper pursuant to this Agreement, from exercising any
rights granted to the City by the Contract.
11. Revocation. This Agreement shall be revocable upon 24 hours written notice by the
City to Redeveloper at any time prior to an actual conveyance of title of the Redevelopment
Property by the City to Redeveloper. In the event of such a revocation, under no circumstances
shall the City be deemed liable to Redeveloper. Redeveloper's obligations to indemnify the City
pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement shall survive revocation, expiration, or other termination of
this Agreement.
12. Prior Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Agreement
shall be construed to amend or supersede any term or provision of the Contract. Any default by
Redeveloper under this Agreement (subject to the cure periods described in Section 9.2 of the
Contract) will be an Event of Default under the Contract with respect to the Redevelopment
Property.
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 8
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in their behalf by their authorized representatives on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 9
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
PARK NICOLLET METHODIST HOSPITAL
By
Its
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 10
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
EXHIBIT A
Redevelopment Property
That part of the following described property:
Parcel 1:
Block 1 and that part of Block 2 lying Southeasterly of the Southeasterly line of Belt Line
Boulevard. Also that part of Block 7 lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly line of
Monterey Dr. Westmoreland Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range
24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
A tract of land 40 feet in width lying immediately north of and adjacent to the northerly lines
of Blocks 1 and 2, Westmoreland Park and lying easterly of the Southeasterly line of Belt
Line Boulevard.
Together with the following described vacated right-of-ways:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range
24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
A tract of land lying southeasterly of a line 40.00 feet northerly of, measured at a right angle
to, and parallel with the north line of Westmoreland Park, that lies easterly of the
southeasterly line of Belt Line Boulevard and westerly of the northerly extension of the
easterly line of Block 1, said plat.
AND
That part of the Right-of-ways originally dedicated in the plat of Westmoreland Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota described and follows:
That part of 36 1/2 Street which lies easterly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive and
west of the centerline of Natchez Avenue;
AND
That part of Ottawa Avenue, which lies northerly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive
and south of the north line of said plat;
AND
That part of Natchez Avenue, which lies northerly of the northeasterly line of Monterey Drive
and south of the north line of said plat;
AND
The alley contained within Block 1 of said plat;
Meeting of November 19, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 11
Subject: Early Start Agreement between the City and Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital
AND
Those parts of the alleys contained within Block 2 of said plat lying easterly and southerly of
the southeasterly line of Belt Line Boulevard;
AND
That part of the alley contained within Block 7 of said plat lying northerly of the northeasterly
line of Monterey Drive.
Lying Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South
00 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds West, along the East line of said Parcel 2, being the East
line of the West 25 feet of Natchez Avenue, a distance of 511.87 feet to the point of
beginning; thence North 86 degrees 07 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 278.24 feet;
thence North 79 degrees 14 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 127.81 feet; thence North
66 degrees 00 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 104.21 feet to the Southeasterly right-
of-way line of Belt Line Boulevard and said line there terminating.
To be platted as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Melrose Institute