HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/12/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA
DEC. 2, 2019
6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – council chambers
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes Nov. 4, 2019
4. Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar
EDA consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of Oct. 26 through Nov. 22, 2019.
4b. Adopt EDA Resolution approving the decertification of the Edgewood TIF District.
4c. Adopt EDA Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF
District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
4d. Adopt EDA Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
5. Reports -- None
7. New business -- None
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers
1. Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Police officer oath of office
3. Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting minutes of Oct. 21, 2019
3b. Special study session minutes of Oct. 21, 2019
3c. Joint meeting minutes of Oct. 22, 2019
3d. Study session minutes of Oct. 28, 2019
3e. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 4, 2019
3f. Special city council meeting minutes of Nov. 12, 2019
3g. Study session minutes of Nov. 12, 2019
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove
items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
Meeting of Dec. 2, 2019
City council agenda
5. Boards and commissions – None
6. Public hearings
6a. 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing
Recommended action: There is no formal action required at this meeting. After staff
completes its presentation on the 2020 budget and levy the Mayor is asked to open the public
hearing, take comments, and close the public hearing.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report and
approving the staff recommended layout for the Dakota Avenue corridor from Minnetonka
Boulevard to Lake Street.
8b. First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending the
zoning map under chapter 36 and set second reading for Dec. 16, 2019. (Five votes required
due to one split zoned property. Four votes required if excluding split zoned property.)
8c. First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Section
36-361 pertaining to off-street parking and set second reading for Dec. 16, 2019.
8d. Parkway Residences EAW
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution certifying the environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting
the record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the
Parkway Residences redevelopment project. (Requires 4 affirmative votes.)
8e. Off-sale intoxicating liquor resolution revision
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution amending Resolution Nos. 17-196, 18-
026, 18-71 and 18-198 limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses issued in St.
Louis Park.
9. Communications – None
Immediately following the city council meeting
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – community room
Discussion item
1. City manager’s 2019 performance evaluation
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of Dec. 2, 2019
City council agenda
Consent calendar
4a. Approve for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Oct. 26 through Nov. 22, 2019.
4b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance related to Efficient Building Benchmarking and
approve summary ordinance for publication.
4c. Enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA) with Hennepin County for contracting professional
services for energy benchmarking.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
3712 France Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 06-028-24-44-0140.
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
3785 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 06-028-24-43-0030.
4f. Adopt Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District to
allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
4g. Adopt Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District to
allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair.
4i. Approve first reading of an ordinance to prohibit parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for the city hall
east lot and set the second reading of the ordinance for Dec. 16, 2019.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live
on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on
the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The
agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 4, 2019
1. Call to order
President Hallfin called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Steve Hallfin, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Anne Mavity,
Thom Miller, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Margaret Rog.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior
Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
2. Roll call
3. Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Oct. 21, 2019
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve
the Oct. 21, 2019 meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Rog absent).
4. Approval of EDA disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve
EDA disbursement claims for the period of Sept. 28 through Oct. 25, 2019.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Rog absent).
5. Reports - none
6. Old business - none
7. New business - none
8. Communications – none
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary Steve Hallfin, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of
Oct. 26 through Nov. 22, 2019.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in accordance with
Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA bylaws?
Summary: The finance division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to review and
approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and those
by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the EDA’s
charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: EDA disbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager/EDA executive director
11/25/2019
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
7:09:01
1Page -
Council Check SummaryR55CKS2 LOGIS400V
Note: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
33.00CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
412.50HWY 7 & LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES
445.50
15,080.00COMLINK MIDWEST ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,080.00
3,023.75EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.294900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
245.00EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
464.33HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,305.00
5,138.30HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
5,138.30
24.00HUNT, GREG DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
24.00
1,718.90KENNEDY & GRAVEN BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES
1,434.80MTKA BLVD PROPERTIES LEGAL SERVICES
510.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
126.00PARK COMMONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
3,789.70
25.00PETTY CASH DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
25.00
5,270.85SEHDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
2,594.63HWY 7 & LOUISIANA SURVEYING
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 2
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:09:01R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
7,865.48
Report Totals 41,672.98
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 3
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Decertification of the Edgewood Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution approving the decertification of the
Edgewood TIF District.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the early termination of the Edgewood TIF District?
Summary: The Edgewood Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District was established on September
15, 2003 as a Soils Condition TIF District encompassing one parcel (2401 Edgewood Ave S.). It
was established to facilitate cleanup of the contaminated property and the construction of a
79,000 S.F. office/warehouse building called the Edgewood Business Center. The EDA pledged
95% of tax increment revenues from this District toward a PAYGO note with Edgewood
Investors, LLC (originally Real Estate Recycling), in an amount not to exceed $600,000. The Note
was provided to reimburse the Developer for qualified extraordinary expenses it incurred in the
course of the redevelopment to enable the project to achieve financial viability.
With the August 1st tax increment payment to Edgewood Investors, LLC, the PAYGO Note has
been paid in full. Statutorily, once all outstanding obligations of a soils condition TIF district
have been satisfied, the district must be decertified. A Soils Condition TIF District cannot pool
funds.
At the November 12, 2019 Study Session, the EDA reviewed the annual TIF District
Management Review & Analysis Report prepared by Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant). One
of the recommendations listed on page 19 of the report was that the Edgewood TIF District
should be decertified prior to the end of the year. Pursuant to the Report, and as discussed at
the Study Session, it is recommended that the District be terminated.
Financial or budget considerations: Decertifying the Edgewood TIF District will terminate the
TIF District 6 years earlier than its legal maximum term thus adding $4,025,000 in new taxable
market value to the applicable taxing jurisdictions’ assessment rolls.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: EDA resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Decertification of the Edgewood Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District
EDA Resolution No. 19 -____
Resolution decertifying Edgewood
Tax Increment Financing District
Whereas, on September 15, 2003, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) established the Edgewood Tax Increment
Financing District (the "TIF District"), a soils condition TIF district, within existing Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (the “Project”), all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.1794 (the
“TIF Act’), and Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 (the “EDA Act); and
Whereas, as of the date hereof all bonds and obligations to which tax increment from
the TIF District have been pledged have been paid in full or defeased and all other costs of the
Project have been paid; and
Whereas, the Authority desires by this resolution to cause the decertification of the TIF
District after which all property taxes generated by property within the TIF District will be
distributed in the same manner as all other property taxes.
Now therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority as follows:
1.The TIF District is hereby decertified as of the date hereof.
2.Authority staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to
the Hennepin County Director of Property Taxation together with a request to decertify the TIF
District effective for taxes payable in 2020.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Steve Hallfin, president
Attest
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF
District
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution modifying the tax increment financing
plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support pooling an additional 10% within the Wolfe Lake
TIF District to use for eligible rental housing?
Summary: As discussed in the TIF District Management Review & Analysis prepared by Ehlers
and presented at the November 12, 2019 study session, Minnesota statutes Section 469.1763,
subdivision 2(d) allows for the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard
25% allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements.
The projects need to be tax credit eligible, meaning that they are both rent and income
restricted. The rent and income guidelines are defined as rental housing with 20% of the units
occupied by families at 50% of median income or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60%
of median income, and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the
applicable income limit. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as these costs
were not funded through tax credits. The funds can be spent anywhere within the city and do
not need to be located within a specific project area.
Since the obligations will be paid off within the Wolfe Lake TIF District by February 1, 2020, the
district must either be decertified or the TIF plan modified. With this TIF plan modification, 35%
of the increment can be retained annually through 2031 for eligible housing costs. The
remaining 65% of the increment would be returned to the county each year for redistribution
to the city, county and school district as general property taxes. Pooled funds will need to
remain in the TIF district until eligible housing expenses are incurred.
Financial or budget considerations: It is estimated that there will be approximately $572,000
available for pooling for affordable housing over time through 2031 in the Wolfe Lake TIF
District.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: EDA Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, senior accountant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
EDA Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution Approving a Modification to Tax Increment Financing
Plans for the Ellipse on Excelsior and Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing Districts in Connection with Pooling for
Affordable Housing
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) has previously established
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project Area”) and adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor,
as amended (the “Redevelopment Plan”). The City and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) have also established the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) and the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (together, the “TIF Districts”) within the Project Area, and adopted
a Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts (the “TIF Plans”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”);
Whereas, in connection with making an election to authorize certain expenditures for
affordable housing pursuant to Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the Authority
and City desire to amend the TIF Plans for the TIF Districts to provide for administrative changes
to the budgets set forth therein (the “Amendments”);
Whereas, the Amendments do not increase the total estimated tax increment
expenditures, amount of bonded indebtedness, or capitalized interest, or make any other
changes that would require a new public hearing pursuant to Section 469.175, subd. 4 of the
TIF Act.
Now, therefore, be it resolved as follows:
1. Findings for the Adoption of the Amendments. The Authority finds that the
Amendments are intended to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area, to create an impetus for the construction of decent, safe and sanitary housing for
persons of low and moderate income by better utilizing blighted, polluted and underutilized
land and enhancing the tax base of the City, and to otherwise promote certain public purposes
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, and in
the Amendments.
The Authority hereby ratifies and confirms the findings made in connection with the
establishment of the TIF Districts.
2. Election to Authorize Certain Expenditures for Affordable Housing. In accordance
with Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the Authority may elect to increase by up
to 10% the permitted amount of expenditures for activities located outside the geographic area
of any tax increment financing district, provided that the expenditures (a) be used exclusively to
assist housing that meets the requirement for a qualified low-income building, as that term is
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District
used in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; (b) not exceed the qualified basis of the
housing, as defined under section 42(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, less the amount of any
credit allowed under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (c) be used to: (i) acquire
and prepare the site of the housing; (ii) acquire, construct, or rehabilitate the housing; or (iii)
make public improvements directly related to the housing. The Authority hereby elects to
authorize utilizing up to 35% of the tax increment from the TIF Districts, less any amount
utilized for administrative expenses, for such housing expenditures as set forth in the
Amendments.
3. Approval of the Amendments. Subject to approval by the City, the Amendments
are hereby approved in substantially the form presented to the Authority and on file in the
office of the Economic Development Director. Authority staff, advisors and legal counsel are
authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Amendments. Authority
staff is hereby directed to file a copy of this resolution and the Amendments with the County
Auditor of Hennepin County, the Office of the State Auditor and the Commissioner of Revenue.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Steven Hallfin, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution modifying the tax increment financing
plan for the Ellipse TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support pooling an additional 10% within the Ellipse TIF
District to use for eligible rental housing?
Summary: As discussed in the TIF District Management Review & Analysis prepared by Ehlers
and presented at the November 12, 2019 study session, Minnesota statutes Section 469.1763,
subdivision 2(d) allows for the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard
25% allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements.
The projects need to be tax credit eligible, meaning that they are both rent and income
restricted. The rent and income guidelines are defined as rental housing with 20% of the units
occupied by families at 50% of median income or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60%
of median income, and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the
applicable income limit. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as such costs
were not funded through tax credits. The funds can be spent anywhere within the city and do
not need to be located within a specific project area.
There were three pay-as-you-go obligations in the Ellipse TIF District. Two of the notes have
been paid off and the last note is anticipated to be repaid in full on or before February 2021.
Once all obligations are met, a district must either be decertified or the TIF plan modified. With
this TIF plan modification, 35% of the increment can be retained annually through 2036 for
eligible housing costs. The remaining 65% of the increment would be returned to the county for
redistribution to the city, county and school district as general property taxes. Pooled funds will
need to remain in the TIF district until eligible housing expenses are incurred.
Financial or budget considerations: It is estimated that there will be approximately $3.8 million
available for pooling for affordable housing over time through 2036 in the Ellipse TIF District.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: EDA resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, senior accountant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
EDA Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution Approving a Modification to Tax Increment Financing
Plans for the Ellipse on Excelsior and Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing Districts in Connection with Pooling for
Affordable Housing
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) has previously established
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project Area”) and adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor,
as amended (the “Redevelopment Plan”). The City and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) have also established the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) and the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (together, the “TIF Districts”) within the Project Area, and adopted
a Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts (the “TIF Plans”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”);
Whereas, in connection with making an election to authorize certain expenditures for
affordable housing pursuant to Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the Authority
and City desire to amend the TIF Plans for the TIF Districts to provide for administrative changes
to the budgets set forth therein (the “Amendments”);
Whereas, the Amendments do not increase the total estimated tax increment
expenditures, amount of bonded indebtedness, or capitalized interest, or make any other
changes that would require a new public hearing pursuant to Section 469.175, subd. 4 of the
TIF Act.
Now, therefore, be it resolved as follows:
1. Findings for the Adoption of the Amendments. The Authority finds that the
Amendments are intended to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area, to create an impetus for the construction of decent, safe and sanitary housing for
persons of low and moderate income by better utilizing blighted, polluted and underutilized
land and enhancing the tax base of the City, and to otherwise promote certain public purposes
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, and in
the Amendments.
The Authority hereby ratifies and confirms the findings made in connection with the
establishment of the TIF Districts.
2. Election to Authorize Certain Expenditures for Affordable Housing. In accordance
with Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the Authority may elect to increase by up
to 10% the permitted amount of expenditures for activities located outside the geographic area
of any tax increment financing district, provided that the expenditures (a) be used exclusively to
assist housing that meets the requirement for a qualified low-income building, as that term is
used in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; (b) not exceed the qualified basis of the
Economic development authority meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
housing, as defined under section 42(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, less the amount of any
credit allowed under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (c) be used to: (i) acquire
and prepare the site of the housing; (ii) acquire, construct, or rehabilitate the housing; or (iii)
make public improvements directly related to the housing. The Authority hereby elects to
authorize utilizing up to 35% of the tax increment from the TIF Districts, less any amount
utilized for administrative expenses, for such housing expenditures as set forth in the
Amendments.
3. Approval of the Amendments. Subject to approval by the City, the Amendments
are hereby approved in substantially the form presented to the Authority and on file in the
office of the Economic Development Director. Authority staff, advisors and legal counsel are
authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Amendments. Authority
staff is hereby directed to file a copy of this resolution and the Amendments with the County
Auditor of Hennepin County, the Office of the State Auditor and the Commissioner of Revenue.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Steven Hallfin, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Police officer oath of office
Recommended action: City Clerk Melissa Kennedy will administer the police officer oath of
office to Officer Stanikka Alcantara.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: Officer Stanikka Alcantara graduated from St. Cloud State University and most
recently had been employed by the St. Cloud Police Department. Stanikka was hired as a police
officer on July 8, 2019 and successfully completed our Police Training Officer program on
November 25, 2019 meeting all the requirements to work as a police officer in the community
of St. Louis Park.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: City of St. Louis Park police officer oath of office
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Police officer oath of office
State of Minnesota,
County of Hennepin ss.
City of St. Louis Park
I, Stanikka Alcantara, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of
Police Officer for the City of St. Louis Park, in the County of Hennepin and the State
of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability.
Stanikka Alcantara
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of July, 2019.
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
}
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 21, 2019
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Building & Energy Director (Mr. Hoffman), City
Attorney (Mr. Knutson), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Director of Public Works (Mr.
Hanson) Operations & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Sr. Engineering Project Manager (Mr.
Sullivan), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations - none
3. Approval of minutes - none
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2573-19 vacating a water
main easement and approving summary ordinance for publication.
4b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2574-19 establishing fees for
2020 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve
the summary ordinance for publication.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 19-120 setting the 2020 utility rates.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 19-121 approving the Subrecipient Agreement with the
Metropolitan Council for the SWLRT Beltline Blvd Station park & ride facility.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 19-122 rescinding Resolution No. 18-172 and approving
the attached list of snow removal exempt parking areas.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 19-123 granting a deed and an access easement to
Metropolitan Council for the construction and operation of the SWLRT project and
accepting an access easement from Metropolitan Council.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 19-124 establishing the employer contribution for benefits
in 2020.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 19-125 to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water,
refuse, abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citation charges
against the benefiting property.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 21, 2019
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 19-126 authorizing the installation of parking restrictions
on the west side of Independence Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings
6a. Consolidated public hearing – 2020 budget and property owner service charges
for special service district no. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 2020 budget, service charges and
10-year extension for special service district nos. 5 & 6.
Mr. Hanson presented the staff report. He noted the 2020 proposed budget and service
charges are similar to that of past years. Staff has held meetings and reached out to
property owners in special service districts and received support for approving the 2020
budget and service charges. Mr. Hanson stated there are 6 special service districts
within the city, where business owners desire a higher level of service than the city
normally provides. The services within these districts are funded by the business
owners.
Councilmember Brausen asked if these funds are used to replenish reserves the city
used for increased snow removals last year. Mr. Hanson stated yes.
Councilmember Rog asked what formula is used to determine how much each district
pays for services. Mr. Hanson stated is it determined by the linear foot of the curb line
in districts 2, 4, 5 and 6. He continued in districts 1 and 3, it is determined by linear foot
of curb line and square foot of sidewalk as well.
Councilmember Rog asked if any residences are part of special service districts. Mr.
Hanson stated no; however, noted there are two residences included by development,
that do pay for services by invoice, not through taxes.
Councilmember Harris asked how many businesses participate in the petition to create a
special service district. Mr. Harmening stated this is a bottom-up alignment, but the city
cannot force businesses to create special service districts, so there is a low bar for
petitioning for a special service district (25%), but a higher bar when businesses veto it
(35%).
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 21, 2019
Councilmember Hallfin stated special service districts are great, adding they beautify
areas of city. He noted he has had a handful of requests for using white lighting vs.
colored lighting in special service districts, adding that residents have said the white
lighting is classier.
Mayor Spano asked how often the city monitors lighting and banners within the special
service districts. Mr. Hanson stated staff does weekly checks, and also responds to
complaints as they are received.
There is no formal action required at this meeting. Formal action on the budget and
service charges will be placed on the November 4 council agenda.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. Monterey Dr/Beltline Blvd/36th St bikeways – project nos. 4020-1101, 4021-
2000 and 4022-6000). Resolution No. 19-127.
Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the roundabout at the Rec Center will be for both
entrance and exit, adding it will be extremely helpful at that location. Mr. Sullivan said
yes, this will be the case, adding the roundabout will remove requirements for making a
left turn at that location.
Mr. Sullivan pointed out the estimated total costs of the 3 phases of the project will be
$7,657,599 for enhancements and pavement work during the years 2020 – 2022.
Councilmember Mavity stated it is exciting to be at this point in the process and she
appreciates all the work staff has done. She also thanked neighbors for their input and
public conversations over time, and asked if anything has changed since the public
hearing on this project. Mr. Sullivan stated nothing had changed.
Councilmember Mavity noted an article she recently read about roundabouts which was
very affirming in reductions of accidents and speed reductions. She stated she is fully
supportive of the roundabout, especially in light of pedestrian crossings, and asked if
there will be user-activated lights and signage for vehicles at the roundabout, in order to
ensure safety. Mr. Sullivan stated yes, adding that staff will use best practices and
guidelines here for signage.
Councilmember Mavity stated she will be watching the designs when they come back to
council, for the signage and safety precautions at the roundabout. She added she wants
to be certain that the resolution clearly addresses 36th Street and the multi-use trail, and
she would be open to language suggestions if the current resolution does not properly
address this. Mr. Sullivan stated staff will bring the designs to council for review, before
anything goes out for bids.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 21, 2019
Councilmember Mavity noted she is still skeptical about the u-turn at Excelsior and
Monterey, at the Bridgewater site, adding it does not work. She would like it to be
retrofitted. Mr. Sullivan stated there will be simple signage at this location and then if
there are issues, more aggressive steps would be taken as needed.
Councilmember Mavity added she wants to be sure the city stays on top of this should it
not work in the way it is envisioned.
Councilmember Mavity added she requested no right turn on red at the Excelsior and
38th Street intersection, including no right on red at Excelsior and Monterey as well. She
stated this is not included explicitly in the design, but asked if this is how staff envisions
this as well.
Mr. Sullivan stated this signal is owned by Hennepin County and noted the city is
working with them on this. He stated at some point they will need to determine what
happens there, but right now the city is following the comprehensive plan which stated
pedestrians, bikes and vehicles are prioritized in that order. He noted staff will make
sure this is part of the discussion before going out to bid.
Councilmember Mavity added she did speak to Marion Greene regarding this issue as
well.
Councilmember Harris asked about the public process and what residents can anticipate
regarding this project. Mr. Sullivan stated staff will come back to council in early 2020
for approval of the Monterey Drive Bridgewater phase, so as to complete this phase by
mid-summer 2020. He added staff will then come back to council in the fall of 2021 for
bids, adding there will be much communication with residents by email and on the city
website.
Councilmember Harris also pointed out sight lines on the roundabouts are an important
concern, and she encouraged shorter plantings there. Mr. Sullivan agreed and stated
staff has learned much from the sight lines at the roundabouts on Louisiana Avenue,
noting they are working with operations staff on including the right vegetation and
correct placement.
Councilmember Harris also thanked staff for their ingenuity on the right in and out
feature of the roundabout design, into the Rec Center which will increase public safety
and which is very valuable.
Councilmember Harris asked about the road diet and why the city is utilizing this.
Mr. Sullivan stated it is a term used for any reallocation or removal of traffic lanes for
vehicle traffic, which can assist with traffic flow and help to avoid collisions or vehicle
weaving.
Councilmember Harris pointed out this is a win-win and an opportunity for the city to
utilize its Living Streets policy, adding she is eager to see this enacted.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 21, 2019
Councilmember Rog stated these are all terrific changes and she supports this plan. She
stated she does share some of the concerns of residents, and appreciates staff
responding to these questions and concerns.
Councilmember Rog stated by repurposing this area, there will be room left for
corrections, and asked if this was the case. Mr. Sullivan stated yes, that is correct and it
allows for corrections and changes, which will continue to evolve again and again in the
next 20 years.
Councilmember Rog stated the new roundabout will allow for safer crossings, but will
not be large, tall yellow signs. She asked if signage at the roundabout could be more
aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Sullivan stated staff will follow best practices and guidance,
so will have little liberty with signage.
Councilmember Rog asked if there is any anticipated parking loss with the plan. Mr.
Sullivan stated there will be some at the Rec Center parking lot, but staff is trying to
replace 1 for 1 there.
Councilmember Rog asked if there will be any reconfiguration of parking in front of the
businesses on 36th Street. Mr. Sullivan stated scenarios on traffic have been run there,
and with projected 2040 traffic volumes and developments of SWLRT and Beltline, they
have accounted for more development in that area.
Councilmember Miller appreciated the work of staff on this project. He stated this will
get more cars off the roadways in the future, which will be good for the climate. He
added the plan has very little impact to trees, and he thanked staff for their work on the
roundabout, which makes this a safer intersection. He stated he will support this.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Miller, stating this plan is
consistent with all the projects in the city’s infrastructure, and the money spent here
will be on the priorities of the comprehensive plan as well as equity. He stated access to
transportation is crucial and both pedestrians and bikers will need that supportive
infrastructure.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed and stated this is good work, and he is happy about the
roundabout and its design, particularly the in and out feature at the Rec Center, which is
a safety issue. He will also support this.
Mayor Spano stated he will support this plan, adding that this will be in place for bikers
and walkers in the future, and he appreciates staff striking a balance between
pedestrians, bikers and vehicles, which is a cost efficiency. He agreed the roundabout at
the Rec Center is a nice addition.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 19-127, establishing improvement project nos. 4020-1101, 2041-2000
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 21, 2019
and 4022-6000, approving the staff recommend layout for the projects and authorizing
the design of final plans for all three projects.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Spano reminded all they can vote early at city hall from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the 3rd
floor, if they want to avoid lines on Election Day.
Mayor Spano also recognized George Haun, who recently passed away and was a former St.
Louis Park resident and champion of the city. Mayor Spano noted Mr. Haun added 50 parks
within the city over the years, and made countless contributions to St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Rog noted an upcoming meeting on Wed., Oct. 23 at 7 p.m., at the
metropolitan airport commission offices regarding air traffic noise. She encouraged St. Louis
Park folks to attend and also to reach out to city council with any questions or concerns.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council special study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 21, 2019
The meeting convened at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: none.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Building & Energy Director (Mr. Hoffman), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Public Works
Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
1. Prioritizing transit options through investments, engineering and operations decisions
Councilmember Rog began the discussion and pointed out she would support a levy increase if
it allowed for supporting year-round mobility for folks who use buses and public transportation.
She stated she sees a direct connection to the comprehensive plan and the cities strategic
priorities and prioritizing this would impact kids walking to school, year-round bikers and
wheelchair users who need sidewalks cleared in order to move safely. Councilmember Rog
stated she does not expect this to be accomplished in one year but added creating safe and
user-friendly trails and sidewalks is a matter of operationalizing and prioritizing.
Councilmember Miller agreed he is very much in favor of talking more about this and making it
happen, noting it is part of the city’s strategic priorities and prioritizes pedestrians and those
who use public transportation. He stated this is an equity issue and while the city takes pride in
how they take care of the streets, there seems to be a big miss on not assisting those who rely
on public transportation, and it seems worthwhile to investigate this.
Mayor Spano asked for clarification from the staff report on FTEs and costs. Mr. Hanson stated
the report is dated back to the mid-2000’s but noted $150,000-200,000 would be the
approximate costs of using part-time employment to cover snow costs.
Ms. Walsh noted this dollar figure was related to clearing snow from sidewalks but stated staff
struggles to get seasonal staff, and while it could be a good option, the costs are noted.
Mr. Harmening also pointed out the labor contracts would need to be re-negotiated if seasonal
part-time employees were hired.
Mr. Hanson noted if staff were to clear bus stops, they would first need to create hard surfaces
at the bus stops that don’t already have them in order to allow equipment to clear snow.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the costs include buying new equipment. Mr. Hanson stated it
would be using existing and purchasing some new equipment.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special study session minutes of October 21, 2019
Ms. Walsh added the costs also do not include the paving hard surfaces that Mr. Hanson noted.
Councilmember Rog stated she hopes staff does not look for reasons as to why this is not
possible, noting this fits into the city’s strategic plan.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will need to understand the outcome that council is looking for,
noting this could take time. He stated staff needs to understand council’s expectations before
moving forward.
Councilmember Harris asked if there are any service agreements in place with the bus stops.
Mr. Hoffman stated only within the special service districts.
Mr. Harmening stated last year with all the snow, the city did contact Metro Transit and they
did some bus stop cleaning; however, they will not do that on a consistent basis.
Councilmember Harris asked if something similar to the “adopt a hydrant” program might work
for bus stops. Mr. Harmening stated this would be difficult to have staffed and to ask residents
to do volunteer work like this.
Councilmember Harris asked if neighborhood groups could be asked to purchase snow clearing
services for bus stop areas. Mr. Harmening stated this goes back to what kind of outcome the
council wants to see and reliability of these services.
Councilmember Mavity stated this is confusing and feels like many issues vs. only bus stops. She
stated she does not want to review sidewalk shoveling again and does not support discussing
this topic again. She asked if this could be discussed with the city’s Met Council representative.
Mr. Harmening stated depending on what the council wants for outcomes, perhaps this could
be phased in and possibly clearing the highest ridership bus stop areas could be done.
Councilmember Rog stated this requires plow scheduling changes and reprioritizing. She stated
this is an important aspiration and the expectation should be based on resident input, such as
helping kids walk to school safely.
Ms. Walsh noted that snow removal from streets is also based on emergency services and
plowing on both main and neighborhood streets is a priority so emergency services can access
homes.
Councilmember Brausen stated in Ward 4 there are no alleys or sidewalks, but he does believe
walking and biking should be prioritized over driving. He stated this will be a shared community
cost, and if it is to be prioritized, the levy will be impacted and need to be increased.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he agrees in theory; however, not in practice. He stated the
council can continue to discuss ways to improve and focus on pedestrians and bikers, but there
is a problem with where to put the snow. He noted this will be adding about 1% to the levy,
adding that Councilmember Rog stated she is willing to do this, and yet she is not willing to
accept the levy currently in front of the council. He added he does not feel the city should clean
all sidewalks, and people should be responsible for their own.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special study session minutes of October 21, 2019
Councilmember Harris stated that residents should continue to clear their sidewalks, but she
wants greater clarity on what community sidewalks are, adding it seems to be confusing to
residents and also seems unfair. She stated this is a communication opportunity, and she is in
favor of continuing this conversation on year-round maintenance but would like to table the
conversation about sidewalks.
Councilmember Mavity added this is about accountability and stated even the owners of
affordable properties are accountable for clearing their sidewalks. She stated the problem is
enforcement, and the city should ticket and operationalize the policies already in place.
Mayor Spano stated he had frustrations last winter with the bus stop at Highway 7 and Texas
Avenue, and is interested in having more conversation on this in order to figure out our
responsibility. He agreed the council should discuss this with the new Met Council
representative and look again at the dollars needed to do this and get a breakdown of costs.
Mayor Spano added nothing will happen this winter, but the council has an opportunity to ask
folks that own properties if they will take care of snow plowing, although he is less interested in
a sidewalk discussion.
Councilmember Brausen added he would like to see a public listening session around this topic
as well as education.
Councilmember Mavity stated there are things that a homeowner needs to do to upkeep their
home, and the idea of having an ordinance and then when people don’t comply – the city does
it for them, and folks get a pass, is not acceptable. She added the city does provide a safety net
for folks who cannot take care of their own homes.
Mr. Harmening stated staff’s next step will be to reach out to Metro Transit and the bench
company and develop a plan for moving forward on this.
Mayor Spano asked staff to be sure the city’s Met Council representative is aware of this
conversation, so she is prepared to discuss in depth, when the council meets with her.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
Mr. Harmening wanted the council to be aware of several recent drug overdoses within the
city. He noted there is a problem with folks using fentanyl, but believing it is oxycontin, when
they take it.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3c
Unofficial minutes
Joint city council/
School board meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
October 22, 2019
Call to Order
Mayor Jake Spano and Vice Chair Mary Tomback called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Councilmembers Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin
(6:50pm), Anne Mavity (7:30pm), Thom Miller and Margaret Rog (5:50). Councilmember
Rachel Harris absent.
School board members present: Vice Chair Mary Tomback, Clerk Jim Beneke, Treasurer Ken
Morrison, Directors Anne Casey, Joe Tatalovich, Karen Waters. Chair Nancy Gores absent.
City staff present: City Manager Tom Harmening, Deputy City Manager Nancy Deno,
Engineering Director Debra Heiser, Housing Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Operations and
Recreation Director Cindy Walsh, Police Chief Mike Harcey
School district staff present: Superintendent Astein Osei, Communications Director Sara
Thompson, Community Education Director Lisa Greene, Curriculum and Instruction Director
Patrick Duffy, Adult Services Manager Angie Martinez Grande
City and school board discussion was as follows:
Update on 2020/2021 School Start-End Times: Overview presented by Superintendent Osei.
General discussion on upcoming changes and working through this with others in the district to
better align start times. Discussion on early morning lighting, bus stop locations and how
middle school kids will have more daylight to walk to school with a later start. Discussions were
held with city staff and Chief Harcey. Transportation contract is in review process as it is open
for renewal, once this is completed more review will be done on bus stop locations. Follow up
will be done by staff on: Cedar Manor crossing, bus stop locations and lighting
Community Education: Overview presented by Community Education Director Greene and
Adult Services Manager Martinez Grande. Discussion and overview was done on Lenox senior
programs, outreach and the variety of options.
Vaping: City Manager Harmening discussed the upcoming council study session. The group
talked about what measures should the school district, city and community partners take to
discourage young people from using vaping products? Superintendent Osei discussed how
important it is to get youth involved on solving this issue and educating other students. It was
the consensus of the group to have Superintendent Osei review this matter and get in touch
with City Manager Harmening to see if there is joint work in this area.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Joint city council/school board meeting minutes of October 22, 2019
Overview of Housing Policies, Initiatives, and Projects: City Manager Harmening and Housing
Supervisor Schnitker gave an overview of housing programs, housing projects under
construction, number of units added in the city, housing policy and development of a housing
trust fund. The group talked about youth, housing, affordability and homelessness as it relates
to the community and schools.
General discussion: The group discussed construction in general and at Cedar Manor. Also
talked about Westwood Nature Center and the interest in collaboration on use of space and
programs. Curriculum Director Duffy discussed how curriculum will be developed in a group
planning process in the upcoming year and how they hope to incorporate WWNC in their
programs. The school staff is excited that WWNC has been updated and will have more space
for possible use.
Council and School board members would like to meet again in April if possible.
All expressed thanks and appreciation to Councilmember Miller and School Board member
Tatalovich and Gore for their service and work as they are not seeking reelection.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3d
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
October 28, 2019
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: none.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Director of
Community Development (Ms. Barton), Housing Supervisor/Deputy Community Development
Director (Ms. Schnitker), Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Property Maintenance &
Licensing Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith), Police Lt. John
Parker; Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Samuel Spade & Eric Hauge, HOME Line; Muria Kruger, Volunteer Lawyers Network &
the Hennepin County Housing Court Project.
1. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Mr. Harmening noted there will be an update on the PLACE project at the November 18, 2019
study session.
Councilmember Rog asked if the historic Walker Lake parking ordinance written report for
November 12 will be related to the municipal parking lots. Mr. Harmening stated he will check
into this and report back.
Councilmember Rog also asked if there will be a written report on November 12 related to the
Dakota south bikeway. Mr. Harmening stated yes.
2. Electronic delivery devices/vaping products
Mr. Mattick presented and stated after further research, the council is not prohibited from
adopting an ordinance that disallows the sale of vaping products in the city.
Ms. Boettcher pointed out there are currently 20 active licenses to sell tobacco in the city, but
added 12 do not sell vaping products, while 8 do sell vaping products.
Mr. Mattick said the state of Minnesota allows municipalities to regulate the age of whom
tobacco and vaping products are sold. He stated a complete ban of selling vaping products will,
however, increase the likelihood of a challenge.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Councilmember Hallfin stated if the council bans all vaping products, then why they wouldn’t
also ban all tobacco products, since both are considered unsafe for use. Mr. Mattick again
noted, the council can do this, although this has not been done in Minnesota, adding it also
increases the likelihood of a challenge.
Councilmember Rog asked what the potential cost is to the city if this were to go into litigation.
Mr. Mattick stated the potential costs would be difficult to determine, adding it depends
because costs are covered by insurance. He noted however there is a deductible as well, and
premiums typically go up after litigation. Councilmember Rog stated health and life are more
important than legal fees.
Councilmember Miller stated when he brought this topic up for study session discussion, he
was hoping to put a temporary emergency ban on the sale of vaping products within the city,
while research is done at the state or federal level. He stated this would then allow other
jurisdictions to research and catch up, adding if St. Louis Park bans the sale now, the council can
come back at a later date and determine next steps.
Councilmember Brausen stated this is only about banning the sale of vaping products and not a
complete ban on vaping.
Councilmember Harris asked what outreach has been done to city businesses to see how they
were impacted by the ban on the sale of flavored products, and if assumptions can be made as
to how businesses might be affected by a ban on sale of vaping products.
Mr. Harmening stated at this point, staff has not reached out to city tobacco license holders, as
staff wanted to discuss this with council first. He added there would be further outreach and
listening sessions, should the council proceed with a ban on the sale of products.
Councilmember Harris stated the health effects of vaping are devastating, with no cure, and she
is open to a temporary one-year ban on the sale of vaping products in the city, while more
research is conducted.
Councilmember Hallfin stated everyone is aware that tobacco products kill, adding his father
passed at age 62 due to tobacco use; however, he does have an issue with taking away folks’
personal freedom.
Councilmember Rog stated the difference between tobacco and vaping is that vaping is causing
immediate death. She added currently the CDC is investigating this and while they are, the CDC
is recommending people refrain from using vaping products. She stated the city then should
ban the sales while the CDC is investigating this, and until a recommendation is made.
Councilmember Brausen stated he has concerns about banning the devices themselves and
then later if marijuana use is allowed, the council would have to go back and make changes
again. He stated he is in favor of banning the sale of vaping products in the city and would like
to research banning possession and use as well.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Councilmember Mavity added it is in the public interest to make sure the products being sold
are healthy and having time to study this makes sense. She pointed out recent bans in
Massachusetts and Michigan that were ruled by a judge but did not go through the public
process and therefore may be overruled. She stated she wants to be sure whatever the council
does about this is held up, has intention, a path for discovering information, and is tied to steps
for a more permanent outcome.
Mayor Spano stated he too is supportive of a ban on the sale of vaping products, cartridges,
and pens, but is not sure about the timeframe. He added the Minnesota state legislature will
study this in 2020. He stated he has concerns about the products being sold that are not legal
and the fact that people vaping are becoming ill and dying quickly.
Officer Parker stated the police force processes tobacco compliance checks twice per year and
if a violation occurs, the police provide education based on current law and do a second round
to check on compliance. He stated last year there were no violations on tobacco sales and only
one in 2017.
Councilmember Rog pointed out the messaging around a ban will be important, while the
investigations are being conducted.
Councilmember Brausen added the city recognizes there is a public health crisis now and if the
council bans the sales of these products, there will be a push for more testing and regulation.
He stated the council can always go back and review the ban again at a later date.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he has concerns about the council seeming to know better than
everyone else on this issue, and while he does not disagree these are bad products, he is
concerned the city is in its own cocoon here, adding he would like to have this brought forward
at the 2020 legislative session.
Councilmember Miller added this ban shows St. Louis Park to be a leader, and others will take
note, and do the same. He stated this is the best way to leverage our municipality, and not
overreach. Councilmember Miller added he would not like to put an end date on the ban.
Councilmember Hallfin asked what the process and next steps are. Mr. Harmening stated staff
will reach out to all licensed sellers for discussion and comment. He stated there will be a 30-
day notice prior to the first reading of the ordinance, and then a public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity added staff will need to also reach out to T21 advocates, stakeholders
and folks being impacted, as well as the high school.
3. Notice of eviction
Ms. Schnitker presented the report and noted that the purpose of the presentation will be to
review and discuss the impacts of a proposed strategy intended to promote tenant protection.
She continued stating that implementation of this strategy would require landlords to provide
notice to tenants for unpaid rent and the consequences of not remedying the delinquency.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Ms. Schnitker stated council directed staff to return with representatives from organizations
knowledgeable about tenant/landlord law. She introduced the panel speakers: Samuel Spade
and Eric Hauge from HOME Line, and Muria Kruger from Volunteer Lawyers Network & the
Hennepin County Housing Court Project. Bernadette Hornig, Minnesota Multi-Housing
Association, was also scheduled to speak, but did not attend the meeting. The council asked
Ms. Schnitker to follow up with Ms. Hornig and ask her to email the council her thoughts and
expertise related to the proposed notice of eviction.
Councilmember Hallfin noted he is a landlord in the city and has a boilerplate lease he uses with
tenants that notes if rent is not paid by 10th of the month, he can have them evicted. He noted
also the city requires him to include crime free and drug free ordinance information. He asked if
the notice of eviction is enacted, at the least, would owners have to include information about
the ordinance in their lease agreements.
Ms. Schnitker stated the proposed notice of eviction, however, only applies to financial
eviction, and only to financial obligations. She added including information about the ordinance
in the lease agreement would be beneficial for tenants along with including information on the
eviction notice itself.
Ms. Kruger added this information would not have to be in the lease, if there is clarity in the
notice of eviction about what is owed. She noted once an eviction is filed, it is on a tenant’s
record unless expunged.
Councilmember Hallfin stated, however, that if council moves forward on this, it needs to be
spelled out clearly in the rental license and lease agreements.
Mr. Hauge also noted the process to losing a home through a legal eviction is very fast, so the
eviction notice gives the tenant and landlord time to do what they both need to do in order to
either stay in the home or leave.
Councilmember Miller asked the panel to comment on why Minnesota is one of a handful of
states that does not require eviction notices. Mr. Hauge stated the Minnesota eviction laws are
very outdated, adding there have been no change in these laws since they were written in the
mid-1970s.
Councilmember Rog asked why the eviction is a 14-day timeline. Mr. Hauge stated this matches
the timeframe the landlord gets to fix or repair something.
Councilmember Rog asked if there is any data on if this is enough time for resolution. Mr.
Hauge stated he does not have data on this. Mr. Spade added typically 14 days is enough time
to remedy for both tenant and owners.
Councilmember Rog asked if, along with the 14 days noted in the eviction notice and the
amount owed clearly articulated, is there any other information tenants need. Mr. Hauge
suggested including the overdue amount, the timeline, and information on resources, legal
advice, and mediators that can help tenants.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Mayor Spano stated it might be helpful to have a PDF on the city website with the additional
resource information, so the landlord could attach that information to the eviction notice
letter.
Councilmember Rog asked how one knows if a renter received an eviction notice, and if the
renter knows their rights. Ms. Kruger stated the notice must be included with the complaint,
and if it is not attached, there would be a defense for the renter. The renter must see the
breach in the lease and added this is where the right to counsel is important.
Councilmember Harris asked if the apartment industry is interested in having a pre-eviction
notice available. Mr. Hauge stated most professional management companies do this already
but formalizing this will make it clearer and more official in the eviction notice.
Councilmember Harris asked if this is on the city’s legislative agenda topics for 2020. Ms.
Schnitker stated yes.
Councilmember Brausen stated he does foreclosure evictions for homes, which take up to one
year. He stated he will support the notice of eviction adding his concern was looking from the
point of view of the smaller landlord. He stated the smaller landlord was a bigger issue when
they don’t get their rent payment on time, as then they can’t make their mortgage payment.
Councilmember Brausen added more legal counsel will be helpful for tenants and smaller
landlords and would provide an opportunity for folks to get funds and resources pulled
together. He added the notice should go out on colored paper in order for folks to see it easier.
Councilmember Mavity stated this process must be clear and clarity in the letter is important
on what’s allowed and what’s not.
Councilmember Mavity asked if a payment is behind, and it is paid within the 14 days, does the
tenant go back to a clean slate. Mr. Hauge stated yes, or the tenant can just move out if they
cannot pay, which is better than getting an eviction notice on your record.
Councilmember Mavity stated the laws are written by those that control the resources, and it
feels like the balance is so far against folks. She stated this needs to be rebalanced and is part of
the city’s race equity work as well.
Mayor Spano stated the notice of eviction is common sense, and the council supports this work
unanimously. He added this needs to be done in conjunction with noting of resources available.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports this and wants to be sure the city does not give false
hope to folks. She added STEP offers local support and with not as rigid limitations, adding it
might make sense for the city to boost its emergency resources through STEP.
Mayor Spano agreed and stated the council would need to discuss this with STEP and the head
of the organization as well.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Councilmember Mavity added staff must do outreach to stakeholders as well as property
owners.
Ms. Barton noted HOME Line has done much outreach to stakeholders, and now the city will
need feedback from landlords also, which will take some time.
Councilmember Mavity added she wants to be sure there is much depth in outreach,
conversations with landlords, and the same amount of balanced time for tenants.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
Mayor Spano reminded folks of the upcoming election on November 5 and added there is daily
early voting at city hall from 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. on weekdays and this upcoming Saturday
from 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Councilmember Harris stated she had a request from the Block Restaurant owner, that they are
interested in putting a dog park in their area.
Councilmember Mavity referenced the written report on the transparency guidelines and
stated she did not see the reasoning behind the reduction in transparency from 65% to 50%.
Ms. Barton stated the planning commission felt it was too much transparency at 65% and did
not allow enough flexibility for tenants to utilize the space.
Councilmember Mavity asked for information on transparency in other cities and how St. Louis
Park compares. Mayor Spano pointed out in St. Paul, there are different requirements for
transparency in different parts of town.
Councilmember Mavity asked if developers can do half of the building as a wall and other half
as glass, in order to create a pedestrian experience. Ms. Barton stated she will check on that.
Mayor Spano pointed out it depends on what is done with the wall space, noting it could be
engaging artwork.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is happy to see the housing improvement association is
being pulled together for Cedar Trails south.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the moratorium on off-sale intoxicating licenses will be
extended again. Mr. Harmening answered yes, and the council will be asked to approve it
again.
Councilmember Brausen asked for this item to be put on the regular agenda, and not the
consent agenda.
Councilmember Rog announced the meeting on Tuesday, October 29, 6 p.m., at Parkway 25
with Sela regarding the new residences behind the Shoreham.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3d) Page 7
Title: Study session minutes of October 28, 2019
Mr. Harmening noted there is online training and certification for LBAE for anyone interested
on the council. Councilmember Harris expressed interest.
Mr. Harmening also noted the Department of Justice has signed off on the Reilly consent
decree, and now it will go to the federal district court judge for final signing. He added the
Walker Lake solvent plume is also in process and will be listed on the federal register in late
October or early November. He stated the public comment period is currently open and there
will be an announcement and update on this next month.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. September 2019 monthly financial report
5. Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2019)
6. South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
7. 2020 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemption List and Administrative
Rules report
8. Update- PLACE Via Sol and Via Luna projects
9. Zoning guidelines for ground floor street facing transparency requirements
10. Proposed rezoning of some C2 parcels to C1
11. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses
12. Community technology advisory commission update
13. Cable television franchise renewal needs assessment update
14. Municipal state aid system revisions
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3e
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 4, 2019
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller.
Councilmembers absent: Margaret Rog.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), CFO (Mr. Simon),
Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Ms. Monson), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Small Business Saturday proclamation
Mayor Spano noted the proclamation for Small Business Saturday, stating it is scheduled
for November 30, 2019. Mayor Spano stated this annual initiative is a day dedicated to
supporting small business and calls to attention the importance of shopping locally,
primarily in the Walker Lake, Excelsior and Grand, and West End areas of St. Louis Park.
3. Approval of minutes
3a. Study session meeting minutes of Sept. 23, 2019
It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Sept. 23, 2019 meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
3b. City council meeting minutes of Oct. 7, 2019
Councilmember Brausen stated on page 9, item 8b it should read, “...over 300 units…”
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the Oct. 7, 2019 meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
3c. Study session meeting minutes of Oct. 14, 2019
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Oct. 14, 2019 meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Sept. 28, through Oct.
25, 2019.
4b. Approve out-of-state travel of City of St. Louis Park Councilmembers Jake Spano,
Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Margaret Rog and Steve Hallfin to attend the
National League of Cities (NLC) Summit in San Antonio, TX on Nov. 19 – 22, 2019.
4c. I. Adopt Resolution No. 19-128 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 1
budget and property owner service charges, accepting a contribution from
Parkshores Senior Campus, and directing staff to certify the annual service
charges to Hennepin County.
II. Adopt Resolution No. 19-129 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 2
budget and property owner service charges and directing staff to certify the
annual service charges to Hennepin County.
III. Adopt Resolution No. 19-130 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 3
budget and property owner service charges and directing staff to certify the
annual service charges to Hennepin County.
IV. Adopt Resolution No. 19-131 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 4
budget and property owner service charges and directing staff to certify the
annual service charges to Hennepin County.
V. Adopt Resolution No. 19-132 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 5
budget and property owner service charges and 10-year extension and
directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
VI. Adopt Resolution No. 19-133 setting the 2020 Special Service District No. 6
budget and property owner service charges and 10-year extension and
directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 19-134 designating polling places for the 2020 election
cycle.
4e. Approve the city’s fair housing policy. The policy was previously presented to the
city council at the October 14, 2019 study session.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 19-135 authorizing the submission of the Hennepin
County Youth Sports Grant Application in the amount of $100,000 to help with
funding for the construction of the Aquatic Park entrance relocation at The Rec
Center.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 19-136 establishing certain Municipal State Aid Street
segments and Resolution No. 19-137 revoking certain Municipal State Aid Street
segments.
4h. Moved to 8c.
4i. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of June 5, 2019.
4j. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of June 19, 2019.
4k. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of July 17, 2019.
4l. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Aug. 7, 2019.
4m. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Oct. 2, 2019.
4n. Approve for filing board of zoning appeals meeting minutes of June 19, 2019.
Councilmember Brausen requested that consent calendar item 4h be removed and
placed on the Regular Agenda to 8c.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended, and to move
consent calendar item 4h to the regular agenda as item 8c; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
5. Boards and commissions
5a. Appointment of youth representative to commission
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to
approve the appointment of Theodore Pohlen to the Community Technology Advisory
Commission as youth member for the term ending on Aug. 31, 2020.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
6. Public hearings - none
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. 2019 General Obligation bonds 2019 B & C and amending Sunset Ridge HIA.
Resolution No. 19-139, Resolution No. 19-140, and Resolution No. 19-141.
Mr. Simon introduced Ms. Kvilvang who presented the report. Ms. Kvilvang noted
Standard and Poor’s (S&P) affirmed the city maintains its AAA rating. Ms. Kvilvang
stated the rating report from S & P gives a summary of funding analysis, adding the
rating reflects strong fiscal management, fiscal responsibility and long-range financial
plans -- all well managed. She also noted the city has strong budget flexibility, with
plenty of reserves on hand, and strong access to capital to if ever needed.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
Mayor Spano commented on S & P’s report noting the city’s AAA credit rating, it’s broad
and diverse metropolitan area and stronger debt profile compared with its peers. He
emphasized the city financial performance is in partnership with residents and city staff,
and while it is not the most inexpensive city to live in, it delivers on its goods and
services for the money residents provide.
Councilmember Harris thanked staff for their work, and asked Ms. Kvilvang to comment
on the report. Ms. Kvilvang reiterated this is very good news compared to the market
and will be a great savings to the city.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 19-139, awarding the sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 19-140, awarding the sale of Taxable General Obligation Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) Refunding Bonds, Series 2019C.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
Councilmember Brausen stated this is a testament to this council and prior councils that
75% of city debt will be paid off in 10 years, making investments over a period of years,
and points to responsible management.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 19-141, amending Resolution No. 09-129, approving a Housing
Improvement Area for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association Housing Improvement
Area.
Councilmember Hallfin indicated he would abstain from the vote as he is owner of one
of the condos in the Sunset Ridge Condominium Complex.
The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Hallfin abstain; Councilmember Rog absent).
8b. Zoning ordinance establishing façade transparency requirements
Ms. Monson presented the staff report. She pointed out the draft ordinance responds
to feedback from the planning commission and city council. The intent of the ordinance
is to be flexible, especially for small businesses and existing buildings, yet provide for a
safe and active pedestrian realm and vibrant streets. Ms. Monson added on Oct. 16, the
planning commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0 to recommend adoption of the
proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Mavity thanked staff for their work on this, adding it has been discussed
for quite some time. She stated the guidance on transparency with developers does not
always turn out the way it was intended by the city, adding it has not been translating
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
onto the street experience as expected. She noted the city wants pedestrians to feel
engaged and invited when walking down the street, next to a building, and this
ordinance will give clear guidance now. Councilmember Mavity added as the city’s
zoning administration exercises flexibility, priority should be placed on this ordinance for
safety and for engaging folks, adding this should not be taken lightly.
Councilmember Harris stated this issue has been discussed for a while and is one of the
key elements which emphasizes what neighborhoods will look like as residents walk
through them. She stated the city emphasizes pedestrian priority and wants to create a
warm, welcoming and inviting area in order to encourage folks to move from driving to
walking or biking. She added this plays a large part in the city’s climate action plan as
well as social connectivity, and thanked staff for this initiative.
Councilmember Harris asked if existing buildings would be impacted by the new
ordinance, and what about buildings going through renovations. Ms. Monson stated this
will only affect buildings renovating 50% or more of their structure, and also new
construction.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the light rail station areas are part of this, and if staff
could explain the guiding design there. Ms. Monson stated the light rail stations will all
be part of the mixed use zoning, adding there may also be some still outside of the TOD
use district. She added as these sites are rezoned, there will be a PUD at the Beltline
Station and also at PLACE.
Councilmember Miller stated he is supportive of this and asked how it will be enforced.
Ms. Monson stated staff works with the building owners to bring them as close to
compliance as possible. She added letters are sent out if owners are not in compliance,
and citations issued after a certain amount of time, if owners do not comply with the
ordinance.
Councilmember Miller asked about temporary signage. Ms. Monson stated the existing
sign ordinance allows temporary signage for 15 days out of the calendar year, and on
the building, but not on windows. She added citations would go to building owners, who
notify their tenants.
Councilmember Brausen stated this ordinance is a case where the council utilizes the
planning commission and listens to their recommendations. He added in this case, staff
recommended 60% transparency and the planning commission recommended 50%,
adding he will certainly support this recommendation from the planning commission.
Mayor Spano asked about shades in windows and how that is addressed. Ms. Monson
stated staff works with tenants and owners on not using shades in windows and tries to
discourage window coverings, encouraging they be used as little as possible, in order to
create a warm, welcoming environment.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
Ms. Monson added owners can install awnings to address the sunlight coming into
windows, noting staff is also looking at some tinted films for windows that would meet
the ordinance, and still allow visibility into the building.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve
first reading of an Ordinance amending Section 36-4 definitions and Section 36-366
architectural design to establish transparency requirements for ground floor street
facing facades in the C-1, C-2, and MX Districts, and retail, service and restaurant uses in
the O and BP Districts, and set the second reading of Ordinance for Nov. 18, 2019.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
8c. Authorizing condemnation of land for public purposes - Dakota Bikeway Bridge
Project. Resolution No. 19-138.
It was noted that Councilmember Brausen and Mayor Spano pulled this off the consent
agenda in order to note this issue.
Councilmember Brausen stated this issue concerns the city acquiring land for public
purposes related to the Dakota bikeway pedestrian bridge. He noted there are times
when the city must determine that land privately owned is needed for the public
process, and this is one of those times. He stated through negotiations with land owners
and through the court process, cities are allowed to acquire land for public uses adding
usually eminent domain is used only for streets.
Councilmember Brausen added beginning the eminent domain process in this area of
the Edgewood neighborhood will ensure this project can begin on time and be
completed by late fall.
Mayor Spano stated in some ways, this is an insurance policy. He noted the city does not
use eminent domain frequently, adding he wanted to bring this topic up in the interest
of transparency.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Mayor Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 19-138, authorizing the commencement of eminent domain action for
land for the public purposes for the Dakota Bikeway Bridge Project.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Rog absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Spano noted that Tuesday, Nov. 5, is Election Day. He encouraged voters who have not
done early absentee voting, to look on the city website, find their polling place, and vote.
Mayor Spano stated results will be available on Wednesday morning, and this will be the first
time the city uses ranked-choice voting for a municipal election.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 4, 2019
Councilmember Harris noted the council study session meeting next week will be on Tuesday,
Nov. 12, as Monday, Nov. 11, is Veterans Day. She thanked her father, who is a veteran and also
thanked and acknowledged all veterans in the viewing audience.
Councilmember Brausen added Wednesday, Nov. 6, is Youth Give Back Day at Steel Toe
Brewery. He encouraged all to attend, participate, and support the work done for youth by this
fund.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3f
Unofficial minutes
Special city council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
November 12, 2019
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Elections Specialist (Mr. Sund), Communications Manager
(Ms. Smith), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
2a. Canvass results of Municipal General Election held on November 5, 2019
Ms. Kennedy reported on the election results. Mr. Sund compared the election statistics
in St. Louis Park with those of Minneapolis’ last three ranked-choice elections.
Ms. Kennedy highlighted the statistic reflecting spoiled ballots totaling 113 which is
1.71%. She noted this result was a direct result of the extensive outreach efforts related
to educating residents on ranked-choice voting. She stated staff will summarize all
information for the council, adding she is proud of her staff, the community and the
election judges for a job well done.
Mr. Harmening also complimented the election judges, and the leadership of Ms.
Kennedy and Mr. Sund. He noted staff ensured this process was successful stating it was
due to the thoughtful planning and outreach and education process.
Councilmember Mavity asked how the spoiled ballot rate in 2019 compared to previous
election years in St. Louis Park. Ms. Kennedy stated staff will provide that information
for council.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3f) Page 2
Title: Special city council meeting minutes of November 12, 2019
Mayor Spano stated he also appreciated the variety of education materials that were
designed and implemented by staff, and investing the time and money in outreach and
education at city events.
Councilmember Harris agreed and added the most impressive piece of the outreach and
education program were the creative ways staff brought the information to the voters.
Councilmember Rog asked if staff learned anything throughout this process. Ms.
Kennedy stated something new is learned in every election and her staff is in the
process of debriefing and reviewing items that worked, didn’t work, and could be
improved upon. She noted her staff is always looking for ways to improve services to
voting easier for the community.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
the resolution declaring results of the Municipal General Election held November 5, 2019
as follows:
• Mayor – Jake Spano
• Councilmember at large A – Larry Kraft
• Councilmember at large B - Nadia Mohamed
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Mayor Spano abstained).
Ms. Kennedy stated staff will perform a post-election review via hand count of the
ballots cast in the following precincts to ensure the equipment used accurately counted
the ballots as they were marked.
• Precinct 12 – hand count of councilmember at large A
• Precinct 7 – hand count of councilmember at large B
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Minutes: 3g
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 12, 2019
The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: none.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), CFO (Mr. Simon), Engineering Director (Ms.
Heiser), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community
Development (Ms. Barton), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), City Assessor (Mr.
Bultema), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers
1. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Councilmember Rog proposed staff change the notation for public forum at city council
meetings from “quarterly public forums at city council meetings” to “public forums at city
council meetings.”
Councilmember Rog proposed looking at the city’s sign ordinances and making updates and
changes. She pointed out signs painted on the side of a building, which are not in alignment
with the ordinance as they need to be painted on wood and then adhered to the building
façade, stating this should be reviewed and changed.
Councilmember Mavity agreed about reviewing the ordinance but stated she would like to have
staff give options and alternatives, and also look at what other cities have done.
Councilmember Brausen stated he would like to have council consider a $15,000 budget
request from PLACES for art at SWLRT for 2020. He stated it would be helpful if all the cities
involved could make donations, adding St. Louis Park could set the example by doing this first.
Ms. Barton stated staff is also supportive of this, but were asking for a bit more detail, costs,
scope of work, and deliverables.
Councilmember Harris stated she supports this as placemaking and neighborhood identity
within walkable neighborhoods, which also agrees with the comprehensive plan.
It was the consensus of the council to expedite this and donate the $15,000 as noted.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3g) Page 2
Title: Study session minutes of November 12, 2019
2. Annual TIF district management report
Ms. Kvilvang presented the annual update of the tax increment financing (TIF) districts within
the city. She reviewed the status, financial condition, debt management and future value of the
city’s TIF districts.
Ms. Kvilvang also described the revenues generated from each TIF district and presented
recommendations to consider, including the potential capture of TIF to be utilized for qualified
affordable housing uses associated with the city’s affordable housing trust fund and in line with
the city’s strategic goals.
Ms. Kvilvang noted the following recommendations to council for the TIF districts:
• Pooling dollars from affordable housing and redevelopment-TIF districts may be utilized
for housing rehabilitation fund activities and authorized redevelopment activities
• Increment from the Aquila Commons (Housing) TIF District, may be utilized for
affordable housing anywhere in the city
• Decertify the Edgewood (Soils Condition) TIF district by the end of 2019
• Special pooling provision for tax credit eligible rental housing which can only be used for
rental housing would be a great source for NOAH housing – for rent and income
restricted funding –and can only be used for capital costs, and not for rent subsidies
Councilmember Harris asked if special pooling funds could be used for picnic shelters at parks.
Ms. Kvilvang stated pooling dollars should be directed towards authorized redevelopment
expenses, NOAH properties and affordable housing.
Councilmember Mavity asked if special pooling and TIF funds could both be used for the
housing trust fund. Ms. Kvilvang stated it would not be necessary to do that.
Councilmember Brausen asked if solar panels were considered eligible expenses. Ms. Kvilvang
stated yes.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like a separate conversation on a plan to use these
dollars, and to look at how the council envisions this being used for housing affordability in St.
Louis Park. Ms. Barton stated the council will discuss their vision and how this will be
accomplished adding staff will present models as well, for council to review.
Councilmember Harris asked if TIF funds gain interest. Mr. Harmening stated yes, they are
reinvested.
Councilmember Rog stated she would like to have the climate action plan more closely aligned
with housing. Ms. Barton stated some of this is already occurring as it is tied into the density
bonus and the Green Building Policy measures.
Councilmember Mavity asked how long the green building requirements have been included in
the city’s TIF policy. Mr. Hunt stated since 2010.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3g) Page 3
Title: Study session minutes of November 12, 2019
Councilmember Mavity stated it would be helpful to see where the city is today on this and
exactly what the city is asking folks to do before we ask them to do more.
3. 2020 budget and capital improvement plan update
Mr. Harmening stated staff will update the council with 2020 levy information and budget
related items. He noted staff is looking for direction from council and has been able to lower
the levy down from 5.61% to 4.5%. He stated staff has worked to incorporate revenue
adjustments and expenditure assumptions, where appropriate, which resulted in the decrease
to 4.5%
Mr. Simon added staff is looking for feedback from council about the updated levy before the
December 2 hearing and final decision on December 16, while also getting feedback from
council on the local sales tax option.
Councilmember Mavity noted that environment and sustainability and race equity line items in
the budget are separate yet need to be embedded in all department budgets. Ms. Deno stated
they are both embedded in department budgets; however, they are being called out here for
clarity, while they both roll up to the general fund levy line item.
Councilmember Harris asked about the capital replacement fund. Mr. Simon stated this refers
to items such as fleet vehicles that might typically be replaced every seven years, but if they still
work well, can be retained for a longer time period, thus saving expense.
Mr. Harmening added if equipment is in good shape, staff will not replace it, and this is
reviewed with all city equipment, in order to save costs.
Councilmember Mavity asked Mr. Harmening if he felt council gave staff direction to lower the
levy. Mr. Harmening stated yes, there was an expectation that the levy should be below 5.6%.
Councilmember Mavity stated it is always correct to try to come down with the levy; however,
she feels this is a dramatic reduction, and wants to understand the costs and what is being
given up in order to get to this lower levy. She stated she also is concerned that if the levy is too
low, there will be a dramatic bump in another given year.
Councilmember Rog noted the council would be much better positioned to have this
conversation if they had more information to understand better what residents receive for the
levy, especially when council members are asked by residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated she does not want all the details, as long as the city is following
their objectives, adding she does not want to restrict staff.
Mr. Harmening pointed out one item, which relates to the climate action plan. He noted that he
is not concerned about the city’s affordable housing resources, but stated funds needed for the
climate action plan will need to ramp up more aggressively in 2021. He stated if council directs
staff to ramp up on funding this, there will have to be cuts or additional revenue added or both,
adding this is a qualifier for 2021.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3g) Page 4
Title: Study session minutes of November 12, 2019
Councilmember Hallfin agreed with Councilmember Mavity, adding he appreciates the work
staff has done to bring the levy down, but added he has no problem if it were to go up a bit as
well.
Mayor Spano added he has no concerns with the lower levy either, yet he would like to see
what was done to get from 5.6% to 4.5%.
Mr. Simon stated there were no changes in core services to get to the lower number, we looked
at recent hires and updated the amounts from early projections, looked to see if any one-time
items from 2020 could be done from 2019, in which a few were identified, additional revenue
for police aid to match trends, and just updated expenditure trends and estimates.
Councilmember Brausen stated it might be helpful to put some dollars toward the city’s climate
action initiatives and raise the levy another percentage point.
Ms. Solano noted that staff is researching the local option sales tax, adding they are not sure
they will have revenue from the gas tax if there are changes. Ms. Solano stated the pavement
management program is supported by franchise fees, which increase every other year.
Ms. Solano explained the local option sales tax process stating the law was modified this year.
She stated this has to be specific and have regional significance, pass special legislation, and
then be brought to city voters for a referendum during a general election. Ms. Solano added the
timeline is short, legislators must be contacted, and the item submitted to the legislature
committees by Jan. 31.
Mr. Harmening stated if the council wants to do this in 2020, staff will need to know soon. This
sales tax would be for MSA roads as there is a large gap here, and if passed, would allow city
residents to not have to pay the tax, as all those who use the regional roads will be paying the
taxes.
It was the consensus of the council to have staff return with more information and study
results.
It was the consensus of the council to support the HRA levy at the .0185%.
The council discussed setting aside funding for the climate action plan.
Councilmember Miller, however, did not agree with being specific about setting aside this
funding tonight. Councilmember Miller is also undecided about increasing the levy up from
4.5%, but did mention that building in some liquidity makes sense.
Mayor Spano stated the climate action plan is within the city’s five strategic priorities and will
have to be funded.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 3g) Page 5
Title: Study session minutes of November 12, 2019
It was the consensus of the council to set aside funding for council programs which could be
used for the climate action plan and to move the levy up to 4.96% in order to set aside the
funds.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
Mr. Harmening noted the upcoming Jan. 9-10 council workshop, adding that new council
member Larry Kraft and Nadia Mohamed will be invited to attend. He stated a subcommittee
will be formed to help come up with the agenda. Those volunteering for the subcommittee are
Councilmembers Harris and Brausen and Mayor Spano.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will send a survey to the council, including the new members, and
ask what they would like to work on at the workshop.
Councilmember Rog asked about the municipal parking lots. Mr. Harmening stated there is
nothing that requires the municipal parking lot to be worked on next year and it’s not tied to
the other Walker Lake area improvements. He added the STEP parking lot can be eliminated
and this can be reviewed in 2020, along with all municipal parking lots.
Ms. Heiser stated the Gorham parking lot is also not needed, and there will be a pilot this
winter where there will be no snow removal from the lot. She added this will then be reviewed
next year, and there will need to be a policy conversation on parking lots with the council.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
5. 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Approval of city disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of
Oct. 26 through Nov. 22, 2019.
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to approve city disbursements in accordance
with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
Summary: The finance division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the city council to
review and approve. The attached reports show both city disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the city’s
charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: City disbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
150.00 ROBERT BEALKE INDUSTRIES SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
544.16A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
190.40PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
734.56
33.37AARON, JOSHUA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
33.37
63.66ABDIRAHMAN SAGAL ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
63.66
2,670.67ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,670.67
161.92ABRAMOVICH OMER & TYLER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
161.92
25.80ABRAMSON JOSEPH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
25.80
450.00ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
450.00
648.75ACCOUNTEMPSWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
648.75SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
648.75SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
648.75STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,595.00
3,486.00ACOUSTICS ASSOCIATES INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,486.00
6,004.40ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,004.40SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,376.25SEWER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES
6,004.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
25,389.44
13,738.50ADVANTAGE HEALTH CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
13,738.50
3,101.00AIM ELECTRONICS REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER
446.60REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,547.60
225.00ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
172.53ALBRECHT BETHANY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
172.53
1,025.89ALL ELEMENTS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,025.89
370.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
370.00
132.82AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
101.96CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
234.78
30,750.00AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
30,750.00
476.00AMERICAN PALNNING ASSOC.GENERAL INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
476.00
213.06AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SERVICES OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
213.06
11.82ANDERSEN, JENS OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.82
14.31ANDERSON PETER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.31
76.62ANDERSON RICHARD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
76.62
1,275.40APACHE GROUP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,275.40
314.06APADANAFACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
314.06
30.00APMPADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
30.00
416.90APPLIED MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONSVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
416.90
1,099.88ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,099.88
412.00ARROW LIFT FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
412.00
37,395.02ARVIG CONSTRUCTION INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
37,395.02
1,104.75ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
1,104.75
1,200.00ASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTERPRISES IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,200.00
823.95ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
823.95
450.00ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING OFFICERS OF MN POLICE G & A TRAINING
450.00
66.56AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
66.56
968.00AVR INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
968.00
109,542.05AXON ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
109,542.05
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
200.00BACHMANSOPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
200.00
650.00BARNUM GATE SERVICES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
650.00
3,619.72BARR ENGINEERING CO GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,619.72
24.00BARTON, KAREN COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
24.00
314.88BATTERIES + BULBS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
314.88
1,585.32BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,585.32
210.00BELLOTTI, RACHEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
210.00
153.27BENDICKSON, CARLEE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
153.27
500.00BENNETT COMMUNITY CONSULTING GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE
500.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,000.00
3,740.00BERGERSON CASWELL INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,740.00
166.65BISHOP, KRISTY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
166.65
50.00BJERGEN JOHN GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNEARNED REVENUE
50.00
917.30BLUE CARD-HENNEPIN CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN OPERATIONS TRAINING
917.30
125,923.50BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 5
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
125,923.50
6,290.00BORMANN CONSTRUCTION INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,100.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,390.00
50.00BOULAY WILLIAM GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNEARNED REVENUE
50.00
152.90BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
616.97OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
769.87
2,215.31BOYER TRUCKS GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,215.31
42,300.00BRAD'S LANDSCAPING LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
42,300.00
25.00BRAKKE JOHN KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25.00
9,278.00BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,834.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
346.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,458.00
180.00BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
180.00
80.00BRESZEE AIMEE INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
80.00
149.59BRODSKY SHERWIN & LINDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
149.59
516.47BROXEY BRANDON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
516.47
1,064.11BRUMMER REALTY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
1,064.11
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 6
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
3,140.43BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
3,140.43
1,214.73BUSINESS ESSENTIALS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,214.73
132.28BUSSELLMAN BRADY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
132.28
7,072.30CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,518.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
99.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
82.50HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES
2,409.90STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
148.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
198.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,528.20
2,162.73CANON FINANCIAL CENTER DRIVE IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,162.73
2,083.00CARE RESOURCE CONNECTION OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,083.00
225.00CARLSON & FRANK ARCHITECTS, LLC.MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
190.00CASWELL CHRISTIAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
190.00
593.70CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,322.82TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
127.89CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,044.41
210.00CE CONTRACT FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
210.00
2,050.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20.00DOWN PYMT ASSISTANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 7
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
200.00REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,270.00
2,393.90CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
1,261.01WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
49.03REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
195.13SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
334.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
46.40WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
72.91NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
2,927.51REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS
7,279.95
10,721.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT OTHER RETIREMENT
10,721.00
1,800.00CENTRAL SQUARE E-911 PROGRAM COMPUTER SERVICES
1,800.00
261.60CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
261.60
176.67CHAFFIN LUCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
176.67
150.00CHEF MARSHALL O'BRIEN LLC OPERATIONS TRAINING
150.00
2,740.00CHEM SYSTEMS LTD REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,740.00
225.00CHRISTOPHER STROM ARCHITECTS MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
94.56CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
363.95FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
187.57BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
822.21WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
39.12REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
337.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,845.21
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 8
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
511.41CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
8.59ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,512.71ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
33.72ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
85.81ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
3,571.82ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
773.20ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
231.30ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
15.83HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
900.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
45.21HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
250.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
48.63HUMAN RESOURCES CONNECTION CREW
25.31HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
6.99HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
256.26COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
834.86COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
260.18IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
119.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
54.66FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
272.26FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
75.56COMM DEV PLANNING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,092.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
2,587.62FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
844.04FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER
63.46FACILITIES MCTE G & A TRAINING
135.62POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
419.18POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
156.93POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
48.77POLICE G & A MOTOR FUELS
260.50POLICE G & A JAIL SUPPLIES
50.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
330.29POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,019.77POLICE G & A TRAINING
8.50POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
559.80POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
179.71POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
76.08POLICE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
106.39OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 9
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
448.03OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
60.17OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
776.87OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
42.39OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
102.10OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
52.75OPERATIONSREPAIRS
1,610.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
826.43OPERATIONSTRAINING
1,530.37OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,411.98BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING
255.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,750.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
167.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
22.99PATCHING-PERMANENT OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
691.20ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
255.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
231.15SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS
498.60CABLE TV G & A OTHER
324.50CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
151.94CABLE TV G & A REPAIRS
15.00CABLE TV G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
824.82CABLE TV G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
202.30CABLE TV G & A MEETING EXPENSE
168.44HOUSING REHAB G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
196.29HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSE
27.96STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
10.70WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3,228.00WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
541.11WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
39.00WATER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
150.00SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISING
355.00SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
100.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
275.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
220.59CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
471.40TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,999.99MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
46.85ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
151.19ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
815.46ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
1,500.00ADULT PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 10
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
95.76FITNESS PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.48SPECIAL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,303.12SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
505.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
56.00LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES
603.36PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
640.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING
7.54WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
771.50WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
670.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
39.00WESTWOOD G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
49.12FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
83.65HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,122.94HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
59.00SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.55REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
322.22REC CENTER BUILDING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
108.13AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
67.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
650.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
500.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
13.99BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
49,280.35
128.18CLARKE LISA ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
128.18
37.60COEN DEBORAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
37.60
15,694.89COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
15,694.89
125.98COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
106.34CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
65.30OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
314.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
29.42REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.59
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 11
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
36,156.91COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
14,539.34WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
50,696.25
2,929.75COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEM INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,929.75
250.00COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
250.00
311.10COMPAR INC CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
311.10
2,491.00CONSTRUCTION RESULTS CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,491.00
245.03CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
245.03
45.00COOK ANDREW SOCCER REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
45.00
2,782.39CORE & MAIN LP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,782.39
135.37COREMARKGENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
135.37
8,750.00CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,750.00
371.12CORPORATE MECHANICAL REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
371.12
1,168.00COUGHLIN, JUDY FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,168.00
12,270.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,270.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 12
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
24.60CRAIG KATHLEEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
24.60
81.61CROWN MARKING INC.COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
81.61
134.50CUB KNOLLWOOD POLICE G & A JAIL SUPPLIES
134.50
5,089.00CUMMINS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,790.89SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,879.89
6,637.28CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
6,637.28
413.09CUSTOM HOSE TECH INC BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
413.09
2,920.00CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,814.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,210.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,254.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,112.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,330.00SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,880.00BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPING SERVICE
14,520.00
2,369.46DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
284.00REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,653.46
183.96DATAWORKS PLUS LLC POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
183.96
181.80DELEGARD TOOL CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
181.80
200.00DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 13
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,799.67DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,799.67
8,071.34DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
8,071.34
101.94DISCOUNT STEEL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
101.94
3,165.00DISCOVER ST. LOUIS PARK COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING
3,165.00
260.93DREIS PETER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
260.93
50.00DUBNECAY IRENE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNEARNED REVENUE
50.00
68.00-EBERT CONSTRUCTION GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
1,360.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,292.00
2,344.30ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
2,344.30
9,314.64EDINA, CITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,314.64
4,095.68EGANWATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,095.68
845.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
845.00
31.90EISOLD, JASON REC CENTER BUILDING MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
31.90
657.40ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
657.40
137.45EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 14
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
137.45
400.00EMLAVARTGO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
400.00
39,900.00EMPIREHOUSE INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
39,900.00
5,550.99ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT
5,550.99
871.24ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTEPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
871.23WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
871.23SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
871.23STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,484.93
45.74EVERS, ROBERT REC CENTER BUILDING TRAINING
45.74
2,212.98FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,212.98
598.00FADDEN DEREK SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
598.00
60.67FAHRENDORFF, JACK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
60.67
103.00FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.00
11,302.60FARBER SOUND LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
103.50REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
11,406.10
362.51FASTENAL COMPANY FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
528.51OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
40.12ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
385.48WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
11.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 15
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,328.24
85.00FEINBERG, GREG WESTWOOD G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
85.00
2,449.17FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,449.17
4,476.25FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,476.25
161.87FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
161.87
885.00FINELINE CONCRETE CUTTING & CORING, INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
885.00
1,026.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,026.00
207.35FISHER, KALA PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
207.35
52.00FLARE HEATING & AIR BLDG & ENERGY G & A MECHANICAL
52.00
130.00FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
130.00
84.94FLUEGER HEATHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
84.94
11.05FOSTER BENJAMIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
11.05
157.33FOUNDATION BUILDING SUPPLIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
157.33
20.00FRANCIS, ERICK STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
32.48STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
52.48
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 16
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
962.50FRANK MATTHEW GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
962.50
23.52FRATTALLONE'S/SAINT LOUIS PARK RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
70.29WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
93.81
18.53FRATTALONE'S/ST. LOUIS PARK REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.97VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.50
2,101.25GARAGE FLOOR COATING OF MN FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,101.25
1,343.12GARLAND, MIKAEL POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,343.12
650.00GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
650.00
320.00GENERAL PARTS LLC REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
320.00
2,450.00-GENERAL SHEET METAL COMPANY, LLC. GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
49,000.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
46,550.00
34.10GIACOMO LINDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
34.10
156.00GIBSON GABE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
156.00
7,901.58GL CONTRACTING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
2,805.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,064.94-PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE
41,298.77PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
49,940.41
500.00GLOBAL SYNERGY GROUP ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 17
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
500.00
34,172.60-GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE
683,452.10PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
649,279.50
1,038.15GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,038.15
7,623.79GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
7,623.79
698.00GRAFIX SHOPPE UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
698.00
28.21GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
13.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
681.19WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
441.99BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,203.85
1.07GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1.07
6.00GREAT PLAINS WINDOW AND DOORS BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
6.00
81.00GREEN HORIZONS HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE
410.21WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
491.21
315.25GRINDSTONE CONSTRUCTION BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
315.25
8,545.88H & L MESABI GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
248.90PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
8,794.78
138.00HAAG COMPANIES INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
138.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 18
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
732.75HACH CO WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
732.75
1.00HAFERMAN WATER CONDITIONING BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
66.00
82.08HALE JIM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
82.08
270.00HAMILTON, MIKE FOOTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
156.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
426.00
1,475.00HAMLINE UNIVERSITY TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,475.00
246.40HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,025.03GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
9,271.43
1,308.34HARCEY, MICHAEL POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,308.34
14,303.14HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
14,303.14
160.00HEANEY ALEX WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
160.00
446.30HEDBERG AGGREGATES INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
446.30
74.95HEDBERG SUPPLY WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.95
14.25HEISER, DEBRA ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
14.25
174.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 19
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
95.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,957.01POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,686.75POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES
2,303.38OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
503.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
10,719.81
8,970.00HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
8,970.00
336.70HILDRETH ALEX WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
336.70
41.56HINDERKS JULIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
41.56
166.44HIRSHFIELDSMUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
166.44
17,262.00HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
17,262.00
191.36HOFFMAN NAOMI WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
191.36
5.88HOFFMANN RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
5.88
328.65HOLLINGSWORTH RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
328.65
474.66HOLMES MIKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
474.66
30.97HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.98PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
70.74ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.00SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
346.84WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
87.43PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 20
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
67.82PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
589.43PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.69PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
594.60SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
105.36REC CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES
106.32BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
38.76REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,410.94
571.98HOTSY OF MN BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
571.98
17,890.00HOUSING AUTHORITY KIDS IN THE PARK RENT ASSIST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,530.00EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROCEEDS FROM SALE
20,420.00
225.00HOWES, KRISTINE KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
1,715.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
1,715.00
51.00ICE SPORTS INDUSTRY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,740.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,791.00
1,221.82IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,221.82SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,221.82SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE
1,221.82STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
4,887.28
2,512.31INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,512.31
260.00INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
260.00
2,018.52INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
4,161.10GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
6,179.62
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 21
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
109,200.00I-STATE TRUCK CENTER CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
109,200.00
1,214.27J. H. LARSON CO.WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,214.27
130.55JASONS BEVERAGE CARBONATION CO REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
130.55
2,415.00JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
58.00OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING
7,085.00EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
9,558.00
13.94JERRY'S HARDWARE FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.16POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2.09WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
34.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
57.21
49.95JLCBLDG & ENERGY G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
49.95
3,684.00JOHN DALSIN & SONS, INC.REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,684.00
125.00JOHNSON, SUSAN KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
125.00JORGENSON AMY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
40.00JR'S ADVANCED RECYCLERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
40.00
359.02JUREK JESSIE ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
359.02
900.00JUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
260.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 22
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,160.00
9,948.63K.A. WITT CONSTRUCTION, INC.PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
9,948.63
75.00KELZENBERG KIM GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
3,650.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,650.00
548.00KIDCREATE STUDIO ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
548.00
650.72KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
650.72
26,750.76KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
26,750.76
24,554.85KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
24,554.85
4,092.42KLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
725.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,817.42
175.00KLINGBEIL ERIC GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.00
660.00KONECRANESGENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,428.72BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
5,088.72
500.00KRAGH BRIANNA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
500.00
2,532.75KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,532.75
463.00KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 23
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
463.00
335.25KRUGE-AIR INC BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
335.25
40.03KRUSE, JENNIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
40.03
136.12LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
136.12
3,009.00LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
3,009.00
431.68LAWSON PRODUCTS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
431.68
11,344.54LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
11,344.54
1,112.07LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST P&C UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,112.07
470.00LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
470.00
700.00LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
34.92LIND MEGHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
34.92
60.00LITTLE MEGAN DANCE REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
60.00
2,866.32LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
260.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
3,126.32
258.24LOFFLERIT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
258.24
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 24
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,785.10LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,785.10
37,729.00LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
37,240.71TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
74,969.71
1,785.31LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
345.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
2,130.31
484.10MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,213.55SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
866.25GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,563.90
17,199.00MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
17,199.00
2,986.75MAJOR MECHANICAL BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
2,986.75
24,773.94MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
835.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
25,608.94
1,550.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW, LLC POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,550.00
2,550.00MASIMO AMERICAS INC OPERATIONS REPAIRS
2,550.00
7.79MASON AMANDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
7.79
113.20MASON MARTHA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
113.20
1,930.63MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,930.62SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 25
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,930.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,791.87
102.00MAUSETH ADREA FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
102.00
420.00MAWANDA ISHAKA SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
420.00
11.12MCCORMICK ERIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
11.12
500.00MCDONNELL MOLLY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
158.37MENARDSFACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.91ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.92ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
37.94ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
5.16PAINTINGGENERAL SUPPLIES
79.77WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
75.93PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
54.64WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.84HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
562.48
816.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
816.00
297,678.15METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,140.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
298,818.15
384.50MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
384.50
129.55MILNER JANICE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
129.55
58,658.70MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE
118,219.30PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 26
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
176,878.00
340.20MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
340.20
939.90MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
939.90
375.00MINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
375.00
2,079.18MINNESOTA DEPT COMMERCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
2,079.18
7,150.00MINNESOTA DEPT PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
7,150.00
125.00MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
125.00
580.00MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
580.00
1,360.00MINNESOTA SEARCHLIGHT & BALLOONS ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
1,360.00
495.00MINNESOTA STATE FIRE DEPARTMENT ASST OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
495.00
1,000.50MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,000.50
26.56MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
26.56
6.15MIROCHA DAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
6.15
500.00MITCHELL MAKAYLA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
500.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 27
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
60.31MN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
60.31
1,327.00MOBILE PRO SYSTEMS POLICE G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
1,327.00
2,005.00MOBOTREXSYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,005.00
235.00MOGLESON DANIEL BLDG & ENERGY G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
235.00
6.00MONTES HUERTA YARIET ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
6.00
115.57MOONEY MARIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
115.57
561.00MOSS & BARNETT CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
561.00
37,150.00MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
37,150.00
125.00MOUNT, NANCY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
160.00MR CUTTING EDGE REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
160.00
194.28MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
48.06GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
242.34
793.45MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
793.45
40.00MUNOZ AMANDA SOCCER REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
40.00
33.00MURPHY CATHERINE ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 28
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
33.00
.85MUSKABLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
94.75BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
95.60
335.00MWESBLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING
335.00
1,645.67MYKLEBUST, JOHN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,645.67
200.16NAGEL ANTHONY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
200.16
2,117.34NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
4.04FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
234.21SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
19.99WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
149.84VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.18VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
2,546.60
574.16ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
574.16
225.00NGUYEN ARCHITECTS MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
246.00NIEMAN THOMAS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
246.00
21,250.00NORTH METRO COMPANIES CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,250.00
46,260.66NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
72,250.90CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118,511.56
20,603.00NORTHERN DEWATERING INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
20,603.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 29
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,570.00NORTHLAND EXCAVATING LLC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,570.00
482.89NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
9,724.99MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
10,207.88
189.00NORTHLAND RECREATION, LLC.PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN EQUIPMENT PARTS
189.00
6,795.85NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC.PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
70,158.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
76,953.85
4,610.55NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
6,459.80COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,561.91SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
13,632.26
714.04OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
714.04
248.11OBERSCHMID BRIAN OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
248.11
10.23OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,015.51ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
110.92HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
22.36HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
51.49COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
101.10COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
290.55POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
71.45BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
371.71PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
96.34PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
156.56WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
51.18ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
96.34PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
96.34NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
119.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 30
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,661.59
2,506.00OFFICE TEAM COMM DEV PLANNING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,506.00
231.38OLSON, MARNEY GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE
231.38
247.50OMODT PAUL AND ELIZABETH STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
247.50
216.50ON SITE SANITATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,111.43FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
397.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,830.81
180.00ONSOMU JUDITH GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE
180.00
966.45OPC DIRECT REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
966.45
255.43OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
255.43
197.50PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
197.50
200.00PADILLACOMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200.00
2,355.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,355.00
216.05PARTSMASTERVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
216.05
22.33PARTSTREE.COM GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
22.33
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 31
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
97.09PAYNE NEAL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
97.09
1,200.00PEASE, MICHAEL ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,200.00
2,000.00PETTERSON ADAM ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,000.00
25.00PETTY CASH COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
12.97HOUSING REHAB-SALARIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
39.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
45.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
46.36BLDG & ENERGY G & A MEETING EXPENSE
6.85WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
175.18
2,698.54PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
2,698.54
125.00PHILIP'S TREE CARE LLC.TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
2,322.00PHYSIO-CONTROL INC OPERATIONS REPAIRS
2,322.00
132.59PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
132.59
781.26PLAISTED COMPANIES INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
781.26
2,105.70PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,105.70
1,344.00PLANTRA INC REFORESTATION GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,344.00
206.65POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
206.65
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 32
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
800.00POPPEDCORN, LLC HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
800.00
229.00POWERPHONE, INC.COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAINING
229.00
431.86PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
431.86
612.50PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,451.25INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,063.75
149.61PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
65.16SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
149.60WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
149.61SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
149.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
663.58
319.05PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
319.05
155.00PRO HEADSETS E-911 PROGRAM OFFICE EQUIPMENT
155.00
500.00PROMWACHIRAYAN WAT ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
500.00
3,000.00PROVEN SOLUTIONS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,000.00
46.15PUMP & METER SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.15
54.45QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
54.45
50.00R & R SPECIALTIES REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,170.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,220.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 33
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,348.85-RACHEL CONTRACTING INC GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
46,977.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
44,628.15
1,406.00RAINBOW TREECARE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
276.25BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,682.25
3,909.26RANDY'S ENVIORMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
884.84GRANTSGARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,164.64REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
6,958.74
400.00REACHTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
400.00
5,645.00RECON ROBOTICS INC POLICE MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
5,645.00
135.99RED WING STORE BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
135.99
9,822.87REFERRAL COLLISION UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
9,822.87
34.74REGENCY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
34.74
1,000.00REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,000.00
213.59REIERSGORD, CAMILLA REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
213.59
3,958.75RESPECSTORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,958.75
800.00RHODES GREGORY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
800.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 34
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
336.95RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
336.95
38,832.49RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,844.79-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
36,895.93PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
2,418.06MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
76,301.69
3,745.00RMS RENTALS PATCHING-PERMANENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT
3,745.00
6,068.88ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
6,068.88
10.00RODRIGUEZ ANTONIO OPERATIONS TRAINING
129.92OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
139.92
65.00SALA, GRANT BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES
65.00
101.88SAM'S CLUB WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
202.28HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
304.16
13,671.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
279.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
13,950.00
453.96SAVOIE JEANNE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
453.96
565.27SCHMITZ AMBER INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
565.27
35.54SEARLE, HUGO OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
35.54
803.45SEELYE CRAFTSMAN CO.MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
803.45
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 35
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
4,904.87SEHESCROWSSHERMAN - BELTLINE STATION
4,904.87
40.00SEVEN ANDREA SOCCER REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
40.00
436.00SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,350.00TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
18,041.50TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
27,827.50
5,237.00SHAPCO PRINTING INC ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,072.74COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
7,309.74
225.00SHELTER ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
255.20SHINGLES KORI ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
255.20
540.70SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,013.60STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,554.30
241.39SHRED-IT ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
241.39
17.00SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15.25FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
170.04POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
17.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
242.60WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
478.89
3,000.00SIGEL ALEX ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
125.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,125.00
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 36
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,290.00SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
640.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
864.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTS
2,794.00
1,663.68SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,663.68
268.91SKALLET, DAVID BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING
268.91
1,670.40SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
1,670.40
49.43SMITH, CARY S OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
49.43
104.00SMITH, PERRY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
104.00
6,105.00SOCCER SHOTS SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,105.00
1,500.00SOUTHVIEW DESIGN STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET GENERAL
1,500.00
8,283.24SPECIALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL TECH INC SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
8,283.24
5,016.15-SPLIT ROCK STUDIOS GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
100,323.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
95,306.85
443.65SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
443.65
5,736.00SQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,736.00
391.05SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC TRAFFIC MGMT ADMIN FEE TRAFFIC MGMT FEE STUDY REVENUE
10,258.73STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 37
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
10,649.78
400.00ST LOUIS PARK LIONS CLUB SPECIAL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
400.00
1,137.50-ST PAUL UTILITIES GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
22,750.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
21,612.50
400.00STACIA GOODMAN MOSAICS, LLC.GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
400.00
1,000.00STANBERRY, PAULA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
109.10STANERSON BEN & JEN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
109.10
500.00STANERSON JAN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
192.00STANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
192.00
252.72STAR TRIBUNE ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
37.90SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
290.62
96.10STEFFEN QUINN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
96.10
275.00STENSETH, CHRIS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00
1,104.47STRAND MFG CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,104.47
5,000.00STREETLIGHT DATA ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES
5,000.00
27.99STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 38
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
27.99
330.00STROMBERG BILL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
330.00
371.20STRUCK DON REC CENTER BUILDING MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
371.20
.40SUBURBAN ELECTRIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
79.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL
79.40
333.00SUMMIT COMPANIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
333.00
44,242.97SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
44,242.97
5,060.00SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,060.00
204.96SWIDERSKI PATRICIA REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.96
3,033.35TARGETSOLUTIONS LEARNING OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,033.35
225.00TEA2MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
40.00TEICHNER, CAROLYN SOCCER REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
40.00
70.95TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
70.95
64.00TEMPESTOPERATIONSREPAIRS
64.00
684.30TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
684.30
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 39
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
389.58TERMINAL SUPPLY CO GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
389.58
7,360.71THE BUSKE GROUP CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,360.71
1,517.71THE MPX GROUP SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
1,517.71
206.38THE SHERWINN WILLIAMS CO REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
206.38
287.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
287.00
36.12THOMPSON RON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
36.12
1,768.00THOMPSON, JAMES SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,768.00
304.74THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
304.74
128.00THYNE CADI INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
128.00
215.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,650.75ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
215.00MUNICIPAL BLDG GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,080.75
102.00T-MOBILE USA INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
102.00
1,500.00TOLBERG HOMES STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET GENERAL
1,500.00
11.35TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.35
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 40
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
40Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
95.78TRACK INC. EAST GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
95.78
1,920.00TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,920.00
1,996.94TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,996.94
400.00TULLY, CHRISTOPHER GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
400.00
3,489.00U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,489.00
17,547.25UHL CO INC GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
8,536.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
26,083.25
740.66ULINEREC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
740.66
473.21UNBANK COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
473.21
44.70UNITED SOUND SERVICES, LLC.CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
44.70
112.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNITED WAY
112.00
4,370.00UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING
4,370.00
100.00UNTIEDT'S VEGETABLE FARM INC HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.00
651.54US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
651.54
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 41
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
41Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
40.48VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
40.48
144,422.35VALLEY PAVING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
1,442,608.39CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,587,030.74
60.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
60.00
50.04VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
13,650.68CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
71.72CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
13,772.44
291.13VIEBURG DARVIG WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
291.13
1,449.42VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,449.42
1,518.25-VINCO, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
30,365.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
28,846.75
149.62VOLLMAR ALICE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
149.62
1.00WARNER'S STELLIAN CO BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
66.00
377.50WARNING LITES OF MN INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
377.50
3,742.50WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
66,991.20SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
37,698.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
24,102.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
36,810.20SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS ORGANICS
36,912.94SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 42
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
42Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
206,256.84
1,548.46WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,548.46
50.00WEST RICHARD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNEARNED REVENUE
50.00
14.06WHITE BRENDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.06
19,095.00WILSONS NURSERY INC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
19,095.00
3,500.00WORTHEN GRANT ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,500.00
375.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
375.00
112.00WS & D PERMIT SERVICE BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
112.00
2,535.00WSB ASSOC INC BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
547.50ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,606.75STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
133.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
7,822.25
13,530.58XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,429.30PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
53.16HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE
28,075.66WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,310.10REILLY G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
68.75SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,907.22STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31.62BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
55.81WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
697.23WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21,251.40REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
72,410.83
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 43
11/25/2019CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:11:20R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
43Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
11/22/201910/26/2019 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
50.17YOUMANS MARGARET WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
50.17
139.20ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
139.20
458.06ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
479.38GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
937.44
143.60ZIP PRINTING TREE TRIMMING/PRUNING OFFICE SUPPLIES
143.60
10,800.00ZUERCHER TECHNOLOGIES LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
10,800.00
Report Totals 5,347,519.49
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 44
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Second reading of the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance related to
Efficient Building Benchmarking and approve summary ordinance for publication.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support creation of a program to increase
awareness and encourage energy and water conservation in larger buildings as a step toward
achieving the city’s Climate Action Plan goals?
Summary: On November 18, 2019, Council discussed and approved the first reading of the
Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance. The ordinance will require owners of commercial,
multifamily, and public buildings over 25,000 square feet to report annual whole building
energy and water use. The data would be used to benchmark energy consumption and
motivate performance improvement. The data may also reveal long-term utility cost savings
opportunities to property owners.
The proposed program would apply to approximately 275 buildings in St. Louis Park. A web-
based, interactive map of all benchmarked buildings within the Hennepin County Efficient
Buildings Collaborative (of which St. Louis Park is a pilot city) will provide enhance visuals and
comparison capabilities to help promote the goals of the benchmarking program.
Publication of the summary ordinance will occur December 12, 2019 and the effective date for
the ordinance is specified as December 27, 2019. Staff will work with property owners to enter
data as required by the ordinance by June 1, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: Adopting the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
will require resources to administer. Contracting for the services provided by Overlay
Consulting would result in a $31,000 expenditure in the first year; that amount is currently
budgeted for in the proposed 2020 general operating fund budget. Expenditures for each future
year that the city contracts with Overlay Consulting would be approximately $26,000 provided
that the program parameters remain constant.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Summary ordinance for publication
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Second reading of the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
Ordinance No. ___-19
Efficient building benchmarking
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 6 is amended by adding Article VIII to provide
as follows:
6-301 Definitions.
The following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them, unless the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
Benchmark means to compare the measured energy performance of a building to itself,
its peers, or to industry standards, with the goal of informing and motivating performance
improvement.
Benchmarking information means information related to a building’s energy
performance as generated by the benchmarking tool using descriptive information about the
physical building, its operational characteristics, and energy and water consumption.
Benchmarking tool means the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Energy
Star Portfolio Manager tool or an equivalent tool as adopted by the city.
Energy means electricity, natural gas, steam, heating oil, or other product sold by a
utility for use in a building, or renewable on-site electricity generation, for purposes of
providing heating, cooling, lighting, water heating, or for powering or fueling other end-uses in
the building and related facilities.
Energy performance score means the numeric rating generated by the Energy Star
Portfolio Manager tool or equivalent tool adopted by the city that compares the energy usage
of the building to that of similar buildings.
Energy Star Portfolio Manager means the tool developed and maintained by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency to track and assess the relative energy performance of
buildings nationwide.
Gross square footage means total building floor area of all conditioned space calculated
from overall exterior wall dimensions of all below and above grade floors.
Industrial means manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, treatment, and
assembly of products and materials.
Property owner means a person or entity possessing title to a building, or an agent
authorized to act on behalf of the property owner.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Second reading of the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
Tenant means a person or entity occupying or holding possession of a building or
premises pursuant to a rental or lease agreement.
Utility means an entity that distributes and sells natural gas, electric, or thermal energy
services for buildings.
Water means supplied, metered potable water for mixed use and irrigation uses.
Sec 6-302. Benchmarking Required.
(a) Required. Annual benchmarking is required for all buildings of 25,000 gross square
feet or larger. A property owner shall input the energy and water consumed during
the previous calendar year and obtain an energy performance score by June 1, 2020,
and by every June 1 thereafter. The property owner shall annually provide
benchmarking information to the city, in such form as established.
The information input annually by the property owner shall include, but need not be
limited to:
(1) Building characteristics;
(2) Building use;
(3) Meter information, including consumption.
(b) Exemptions.
(1) A building if its primary use is industrial, and the industrial use of the building
comprises the majority of energy demands for the building. A property
owner must make a request to the city to qualify for this exemption. In order
to qualify for an exemption, the property owner must permit the city to
complete an inspection of the property. The city will determine whether the
building qualifies for an exemption based on the requirements contained in
this chapter.
(2) Condominium multiple family residential buildings.
(3) A property owner may request exemption in writing from the benchmarking
and energy assessment requirements of subsection (a) for any of the following:
(a) The property is presently experiencing qualifying financial distress such
that the property is the subject of a qualified tax lien sale or public
auction due to property tax arrearages, the property is controlled by a
court-appointed receiver based on financial distress, the property is
owned by a financial institution through default by the borrower, the
property has been acquired by a deed in lieu of foreclosure, or the
property has a senior mortgage which is subject to a notice of default; or
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Second reading of the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
(b) The property or areas of the property subject to the requirements of this
section have been less than fifty (50) percent occupied during the
calendar year for which benchmarking is required; or
(c) The property does not have a certificate of occupancy or temporary
certificate of occupancy for all twelve (12) months of the calendar year
for which benchmarking is required.
Sec. 6-303. Multiple Tenant buildings.
Where aggregate data is not available, each tenant located in a property subject to
benchmarking under this chapter shall, within thirty (30) days of a request by the property
owner and in a form to be approved by the city, provide all information that cannot otherwise
be acquired by the property owner that is needed by the property owner to comply with the
requirements of this section.
Sec. 6-304. Public disclosure.
The city shall make readily available to the public, and update annually, benchmarking information
for the previous calendar year by September 1, 2021, and by every September 1 thereafter.
Sec. 6-305. Violations.
It shall be unlawful for any entity or person to fail to comply with the requirements of this
section or to misrepresent any material fact required to be prepared or disclosed by this section.
Violations shall be subject to the Administrative Penalties section of the city code. Violations
constitute a misdemeanor offense.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective 15 days following publication.
Reviewed for administration:
Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading November 18, 2019
Second reading December 2, 2019
Date of publication December 12, 2019
Date ordinance takes effect December 27, 2019
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Second reading of the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
Summary for publication
Ordinance No. ___-19
Efficient building benchmarking
This ordinance requires owners of commercial, multifamily, and public buildings over 25,000 square
feet to report annual whole building energy and water use.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council Dec. 2, 2019
Jake Spano/s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: Dec. 12, 2019
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Hennepin County joint powers agreement for energy benchmarking services
Recommended action: Motion to enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA) with Hennepin
County for contracting professional services for energy benchmarking.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to enter into an agreement with Hennepin County
to utilize the contractor procured by the county for benchmarking professional services?
Summary: On Nov. 18, 2019, Council discussed and approved the first reading of the Efficient
Building Benchmarking ordinance. The ordinance will require owners of commercial,
multifamily, and public buildings over 25,000 square feet to report annual whole building
energy and water use. St. Louis Park developed this ordinance as a member of the Hennepin
County Efficient Buildings Collaborative. This collaborative was established to provide
consistent methodology and technical support for benchmarking programs across Hennepin
County municipalities. One benefit of the Collaborative is the ability for participating cities to
utilize the contractor selected by Hennepin County through their procurement process—and
any future contractors they may select—to provide benchmarking professional services to each
city.
Executing this joint powers agreement would allow St. Louis Park to proceed with entering into
a professional services contract with Overlay Consulting for technical assistance. Because
Overlay Consulting is providing technical assistance services to all cities within the
Collaborative, there will be uniformity in program implementation and reporting that will assist
commercial property owners who have buildings in more than one city.
The city attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement. Once the agreement is executed,
the city will enter into a professional services contract with Overlay Consulting.
Financial or budget considerations: Contracting for the services provided by Overlay Consulting
would result in a $31,000 expenditure in the first year; that amount is currently budgeted for in
the proposed 2020 general operating fund budget. Expenditures for each future year that the
city contracts with Overlay Consulting would be approximately $26,000 provided that the
program parameters remain constant.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: JPA for building energy benchmarking professional services
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Hennepin County joint powers agreement for energy benchmarking services
Joint Powers Agreement for Building Energy Benchmarking Professional Services
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between County of Hennepin and
governmental units as provided in Section 2 and as defined in Minnesota Statutes § 471.59,
subd. 1 (the “Party” or “Parties” depending on context).
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, the Parties are
authorized to enter into agreements to exercise jointly or cooperatively governmental powers
common to each and to permit one governmental entity to perform services or functions for
another governmental unit; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to share their purchasing powers in order to secure the
most favorable terms and conditions for the purchase of building energy benchmarking
professional services;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to take part in the County of Hennepin’s Building Energy
Benchmarking Collaborative;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED, by and between the Parties hereto as
follows:
1. This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) will become effective upon the execution
of each Party and shall continue in full force and effect for all executing Parties, until a
Party withdraws in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
2.Any “governmental unit”, as defined in Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, is eligible to
become a Party to this Agreement and may do so by execution of this Agreement. Upon
execution, the Agreement becomes effective as to the signing governmental unit and the
signed Agreement shall be transmitted to the Contract Administrator. This Agreement
may be executed in any number of counterparts, each counterpart for all purposes being
deemed an original and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same
Agreement.
3.The Hennepin County Administrator, or his/her designee or successor, will be the
Contract Administrator and will be responsible for maintaining the records related to the
administration of this Agreement. Each Party shall designate a contact person and
provide written notice to all other Parties of the name and pertinent contact information
for the Party’s contact person. The Contract Administrator's responsibility may be
transferred to another Party.
4.Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties may make joint purchases or
make purchases using any other Party's existing contracts for building energy
benchmarking professional services.
5.This Agreement applies to all purchases made through a competitive solicitation process
or by direct negotiations as allowed by Minnesota Statutes § 471.345, or as permitted by
other Minnesota Statutes applicable to each Party, at the prices and terms available.
Page 3 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Hennepin County joint powers agreement for energy benchmarking services
6.When making a joint purchase, the joint purchasers shall first consult with each
interested purchaser to ensure that the requirements and specifications of the
interested purchasers meet the needs of the joint purchasers and are included in the
solicitation documents.
7.Prior to completing a purchase using another Party’s existing contract, a Party shall
enter into and execute its own purchasing document with the contract vendor.
8.Each Party shall make payment directly to the contract vendor according to the
established procedures of the paying Party.
9.No Party shall assume any responsibility for the accountability of funds expended by
any other Party or the issuance of any purchasing document by any other Party.
10.Each Party shall be separately accountable for its own expenditures of public funds
made hereunder.
11.As mutually agreed upon, the Parties may share the costs associated with any shared
bidding or solicitation process.
12.Each Party shall abide by all applicable state and federal law, rules and regulations.
13.Each Party agrees that it will be responsible for the acts or omissions of its officials,
agents, and employees, and the results thereof, in carrying out the terms of this
Agreement, to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the
acts/omissions of the other Parties and the results thereof.
14.Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by sending the Contract
Administrator a notice to withdraw. Such withdrawal shall not void any purchases
for which another Party has executed a purchasing document with the withdrawing
Party's contract vendor or to any joint purchase made by the other Parties and the
withdrawing Party.
15.Any amendments or modification to this Agreement, except for a withdrawal by any
Party, shall be in writing and shall not be effective until executed by all Parties to
this Agreement.
16. Each Party shall agree to the building energy benchmarking collaborative terms set forth
in Exhibit A attached when executing a purchase document under this Agreement.
Page 4 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Hennepin County joint powers agreement for energy benchmarking services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Joint Powers
Purchasing Agreement to be signed and approved by the proper officers of each of the
contracting Parties, and attested by the proper officer, on the dates written below.
Reviewed by
Counsel for Party (if needed)
_______________________________
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By: ________________________________
Its: _____________________________
Date: _______________________________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
B y: ________________________________
Jake Spano
Its: Mayor
Date: _______________________________
ATTEST:
By:
Tom Harmening
Its: City Manager
Page 5 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Hennepin County joint powers agreement for energy benchmarking services
Exhibit A
Building Energy Benchmarking Collaborative Terms
Definitions:
Building energy benchmarking collaborative: As part of this agreement, Parties will agree to
take part in Hennepin County’s program to promote and support the passing of building energy
benchmarking ordinances by interested governmental units.
Building energy benchmarking ordinance: This is the ordinance that each Party will pass to
establish a building energy benchmarking program within their governmental unit.
Terms:
Building Energy Benchmarking Ordinance Reporting Deadline. The Parties will have an
initial benchmarking deadline of June 1st every year. The Parties can choose to include a grace
period, extensions, or exemptions- commonly used during the first year of implementation.
Data Reporting Tool. The Parties will agree to use Energy Star Portfolio Manager to collect
data from building owners to report as part of the building energy benchmarking program.
Dataset. The Parties will provide an initial covered buildings list based on tax assessor data and
CoStar data about each building and assist in updating that information annually.
Exemptions. The Parties will agree to the building exemptions established by the Consultant as
part of the building energy benchmarking collaborative. A list of those exemptions can be
provided upon request.
Program Manager. The Parties shall designate a Program Manager that acts as the primary
person of contact for the Party. The Program Manager will be involved in the day to day
activities of the building energy benchmarking collaborative. The Program Manager will need to
be available for consultation and authoritative regulation.
Utilities to be Reported. The Parties shall require energy and water data to be reported for all
covered buildings. Energy meaning electricity, natural gas, steam, heating oil, or other product
sold by a utility for use in a building, or renewable on-site electricity generation, for purposes of
providing heating, cooling, lighting, water heating, or for powering or fueling other end-uses in
the building and related facilities. Water does not include the building’s sewer and wastewater
consumption. Parties agree to make the building energy use intensity and Energy Star scores
available to the public for each building reporting.
Violations. The Parties will be responsible for issuing, enforcing and collecting any violations
or fees associated with the implementation of the building energy benchmarking ordinance.
Website. The Parties will provide a link to the program website with details about ordinance
requirements, who is required to comply, deadlines for submissions, how-to-guides,
benchmarking best practices, frequently asked questions, forms to apply for exemptions, and
resources to help owners implement energy efficiency projects.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3712 France Avenue South
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3712 France Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 06-028-24-44-0140.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Thomas and Margie Neiman, owners of the single-family residence at 3712 France
Avenue South, have requested the city to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment
policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the
city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total
eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $4,995.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Beth Simonsen, accountant
Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3712 France Avenue South
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3712 France Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 06-028-24-44-0140
Whereas, the property owners at 3712 France Avenue South, 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 3712 France Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1. The petition from the property owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of
Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $4,995.
4. The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate
of 4.25%.
6. The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Dec. 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3785 Kipling Avenue South
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3785 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 06-028-24-43-0030.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Daniel and Jodi Becker, owners of the single-family residence at 3785 Kipling Avenue
South, have requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and
assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the
city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total
eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $5,975.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Beth Simonsen, accountant
Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3785 Kipling Avenue South
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3785 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 06-028-24-43-0030
Whereas, the property owners at 3785 Kipling Avenue South, have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 3785 Kipling Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2.The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of
Inspections is hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $5,975.
4.The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5.The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate
of 4.25%.
6.The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Dec. 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4f
Executive summary
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF
District
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan
for the Wolfe Lake TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
Policy consideration: Does the council support pooling an additional 10% within the Wolfe Lake
TIF District to use for eligible rental housing?
Summary: As discussed in the TIF District Management Review & Analysis prepared by Ehlers
and presented at the November 12, 2019 study session, Minnesota statutes Section 469.1763,
subdivision 2(d) allows for the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard
25% allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements.
The projects need to be tax credit eligible, meaning that they are both rent and income
restricted. The rent and income guidelines are defined as rental housing with 20% of the units
occupied by families at 50% of median income or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60%
of median income, and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the
applicable income limit. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as these costs
were not funded through tax credits. The funds can be spent anywhere within the city and do
not need to be located within a specific project area.
Since the obligations will be paid off within the Wolfe Lake TIF District by February 1, 2020, the
district must either be decertified or the TIF plan modified. With this TIF plan modification, 35%
of the increment can be retained annually through 2031 for eligible housing costs. The
remaining 65% of the increment would be returned to the county each year for redistribution
to the city, county and school district as general property taxes. Pooled funds will need to
remain in the TIF district until eligible housing expenses are incurred.
Financial or budget considerations: It is estimated that there will be approximately $572,000
available for pooling for affordable housing over time through 2031 in the Wolfe Lake TIF
District.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, senior accountant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution Approving a Modification to Tax Increment Financing
Plans for the Ellipse on Excelsior and Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing Districts in Connection with Pooling for
Affordable Housing
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) has previously established
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project Area”) and adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor,
as amended (the “Redevelopment Plan”). The City has also established the Ellipse on Excelsior
Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) and the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (together, the “TIF Districts”) within the Project Area, and adopted
a Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts (the “TIF Plans”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”);
Whereas, in connection with making an election to authorize certain expenditures for
affordable housing pursuant to Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the City
desires to amend the TIF Plans for the TIF Districts to provide for administrative changes to the
budgets set forth therein (the “Amendments”);
Whereas, the Amendments do not increase the total estimated tax increment
expenditures, amount of bonded indebtedness, or capitalized interest, or make any other
changes that would require a new public hearing pursuant to Section 469.175, subd. 4 of the
TIF Act.
Now, therefore, be it resolved as follows:
1. Findings for the Adoption of the Amendments. The Council finds that the
Amendments are intended to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area, to create an impetus for the construction of decent, safe and sanitary housing for
persons of low and moderate income by better utilizing blighted, polluted and underutilized
land and enhancing the tax base of the City, and to otherwise promote certain public purposes
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, and in
the Amendments.
The Council hereby ratifies and confirms the findings made in connection with the
establishment of the TIF Districts.
2. Election to Authorize Certain Expenditures for Affordable Housing. In accordance
with Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the City may elect to increase by up to
10% the permitted amount of expenditures for activities located outside the geographic area of
any tax increment financing district, provided that the expenditures (a) be used exclusively to
assist housing that meets the requirement for a qualified low-income building, as that term is
used in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; (b) not exceed the qualified basis of the
housing, as defined under section 42(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, less the amount of any
credit allowed under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (c) be used to: (i) acquire
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District
and prepare the site of the housing; (ii) acquire, construct, or rehabilitate the housing; or (iii)
make public improvements directly related to the housing. The Council hereby elects to
authorize utilizing up to 35% of the tax increment from the TIF Districts, less any amount
utilized for administrative expenses, for such housing expenditures as set forth in the
Amendments.
3. Approval of the Amendments. The Amendments are hereby approved in
substantially the form presented to the City and on file in the office of the Economic
Development Director. City staff, advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Amendments. City staff is hereby directed to file a
copy of this resolution and the Amendments with the County Auditor of Hennepin County, the
Office of the State Auditor and the Commissioner of Revenue.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4g
Executive summary
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution modifying the tax increment financing plan
for the Ellipse TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing.
Policy consideration: Does the council support pooling an additional 10% within the Ellipse TIF
District to use for eligible rental housing?
Summary: As discussed in the TIF District Management Review & Analysis prepared by Ehlers
and presented at the November 12, 2019 study session, Minnesota statutes Section 469.1763,
subdivision 2(d) allows for the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard
25% allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements.
The projects need to be tax credit eligible, meaning that they are both rent and income
restricted. The rent and income guidelines are defined as rental housing with 20% of the units
occupied by families at 50% of median income or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60%
of median income, and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the
applicable income limit. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as such costs
were not funded through tax credits. The funds can be spent anywhere within the city and do
not need to be located within a specific project area.
There were three pay-as-you-go obligations in the Ellipse TIF District. Two of the notes have
been paid off and the last note is anticipated to be repaid in full on or before February 2021.
Once all obligations are met, a district must either be decertified or the TIF plan modified. With
this TIF plan modification, 35% of the increment can be retained annually through 2036 for
eligible housing costs. The remaining 65% of the increment would be returned to the county for
redistribution to the city, county and school district as general property taxes. Pooled funds will
need to remain in the TIF district until eligible housing expenses are incurred.
Financial or budget considerations: It is estimated that there will be approximately $3.8 million
available for pooling for affordable housing over time through 2036 in the Ellipse TIF District.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, senior accountant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution Approving a Modification to Tax Increment Financing
Plans for the Ellipse on Excelsior and Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing Districts in Connection with Pooling for
Affordable Housing
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) has previously established
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project Area”) and adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor,
as amended (the “Redevelopment Plan”). The City has also established the Ellipse on Excelsior
Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) and the Wolfe Lake Commercial Tax
Increment Financing District (together, the “TIF Districts”) within the Project Area, and adopted
a Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts (the “TIF Plans”), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”);
Whereas, in connection with making an election to authorize certain expenditures for
affordable housing pursuant to Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the City
desires to amend the TIF Plans for the TIF Districts to provide for administrative changes to the
budgets set forth therein (the “Amendments”);
Whereas, the Amendments do not increase the total estimated tax increment
expenditures, amount of bonded indebtedness, or capitalized interest, or make any other
changes that would require a new public hearing pursuant to Section 469.175, subd. 4 of the
TIF Act.
Now, therefore, be it resolved as follows:
1. Findings for the Adoption of the Amendments. The Council finds that the
Amendments are intended to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area, to create an impetus for the construction of decent, safe and sanitary housing for
persons of low and moderate income by better utilizing blighted, polluted and underutilized
land and enhancing the tax base of the City, and to otherwise promote certain public purposes
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, and in
the Amendments.
The Council hereby ratifies and confirms the findings made in connection with the
establishment of the TIF Districts.
2. Election to Authorize Certain Expenditures for Affordable Housing. In accordance
with Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(d) of the TIF Act, the City may elect to increase by up to
10% the permitted amount of expenditures for activities located outside the geographic area of
any tax increment financing district, provided that the expenditures (a) be used exclusively to
assist housing that meets the requirement for a qualified low-income building, as that term is
used in section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; (b) not exceed the qualified basis of the
housing, as defined under section 42(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, less the amount of any
credit allowed under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (c) be used to: (i) acquire
and prepare the site of the housing; (ii) acquire, construct, or rehabilitate the housing; or (iii)
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Administrative modification to the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District
make public improvements directly related to the housing. The Council hereby elects to
authorize utilizing up to 35% of the tax increment from the TIF Districts, less any amount
utilized for administrative expenses, for such housing expenditures as set forth in the
Amendments.
3. Approval of the Amendments. The Amendments are hereby approved in
substantially the form presented to the City and on file in the office of the Economic
Development Director. City staff, advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Amendments. City staff is hereby directed to file a
copy of this resolution and the Amendments with the County Auditor of Hennepin County, the
Office of the State Auditor and the Commissioner of Revenue.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4h
Executive summary
Title: Bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing bank signatories for the Home
Remodeling Fair.
Policy consideration: Does council concur with the bank signatories for the Home Remodeling
Fair?
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Home Remodeling Fair for many
years along with the cities of Golden Valley, Hopkins and Minnetonka, as well as with St. Louis
Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka Community Education. The fair provides residents with
information and resources for housing improvements from exhibitors including remodeling
contractors, architects, landscapers, financial lenders and city departments.
The City of St. Louis Park has served as the fiscal agent for the Home Remodeling Fair since
2015 and maintains a separate checking account for Home Remodeling Fair business at Citizens
Independent Bank. It is good practice to review and update bank signatories as necessary. Staff
recommends that Tom Harmening continue to be the primary authorized bank signatory for the
Home Remodeling Fair checking account and that Tim Simon is added as a secondary signatory.
Financial or budget considerations: Bank fees associated with the Home Remodeling Fair
account are paid by the Home Remodeling Fair. Costs to the City of St. Louis Park for acting as
fiscal agent are minimal consisting primarily of staff time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Choose an item. meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution authorizing bank signatories
for the Home Remodeling Fair
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has partnered with other local area communities in the
Home Remodeling Fair for several years; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is the fiscal agent for the Home Remodeling Fair; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park maintains a bank account for the Home Remodeling
Fair at Citizens Independent Bank; and
Whereas, it is necessary to update the current bank signatories;
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that approval is hereby
given to authorize the following bank signatories on the checking account for the Home
Remodeling Fair.
Thomas Harmening, City Manager Check signatory/primary authority
Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Secondary authority
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Consent agenda item: 4i
Executive summary
Title: Ordinance prohibiting parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for city hall east lot
Recommended action: Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance to prohibit parking
from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for the city hall east lot and set the second reading of the ordinance for
Dec. 16, 2019.
Policy consideration: Does the council support amending city code section 30-162 prohibiting
overnight parking in the shared with Menorah Plaza and Park Theater Place to the east of city
hall.
Summary: The parking lot to the east of city hall is collectively owned by three different
properties. Although the city’s portion of the lot doesn’t include the driveway access to
Minnetonka Blvd, an easement is in place that provides access and multiple use of the lot. In
exchange, the city assumed full responsibility for maintenance of the lot many years ago,
including snow plowing.
During the past years, it has been difficult to properly and efficiently remove snow due to an
increasing number of randomly parked cars in the lot. The 2:00 am to 6:00 am no parking time
frame is consistent with other public lots and allows operations to clear snow before the start
of business.
Staff has contacted the owners of Park Theater Place and Menorah Plaza regarding the
proposed posting of no overnight parking. Both have offered their support to help ensure a
cleaned lot during business hours.
City staff will post appropriate signage at the lot entrance when the ordinance becomes
effective.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Prepared by: Rutager West, facilities manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Ordinance prohibiting parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for city hall east lot
Ordinance No. ____-19
An ordinance amending St. Louis Park city code chapter 30
to prohibit overnight parking in certain parking lots
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. St. Louis Park city code chapter 30 is adding the following section 30-162:
Sec. 30-162. Prohibition on overnight parking in certain parking lots.
No person shall park a vehicle or permit a vehicle to remain parked between the hours
of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the parking lot the location of which is legally described as follows:
The West 95.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 C.H.S.C. Addition.
AND
The West 75.00 feet of the East 325.00 feet of the South 175.00 feet of the North
225.00 feet of that part of the West 5/8 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North of
the South line of West 31st Street extended westerly.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after passage and publication.
Adopted this 16th day of December, 2019, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park.
First Reading December 2, 2019
Second Reading December 16, 2019
Date of Publication December 26, 2019
Date Ordinance takes effect January 10, 2020
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 16, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing
Recommended action: There is no formal action required at this meeting. After staff completes its
presentation on the 2020 budget and levy the Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take
comments, and close the public hearing.
Policy consideration:
• Is the council in support of setting the 2020 final property tax levy at $34,770,521 which
is a 4.96% increase over the 2019 final property tax levy?
• Is the council in support of setting the maximum HRA Levy allowed by state statute at
$1,332,978?
Summary: Included is information pertaining to the 2020 budget and 2020 general property tax
and HRA levies. Information is also provided on the tax impacts to a median value residential
homestead property. In addition, there is a brief discussion on 2020 utility rates that were
previously reviewed and approved.
The 2020 preliminary property tax levy increase adopted on September 16 was 5.61% and
based on further analysis and council direction it is being reduced to 4.96% for council
consideration.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed tax levies and approved utility rates help
support city services, capital improvements, and debt service obligations for fiscal year 2020.
Strategic priority consideration:
All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by the city’s budget.
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a
more just and inclusive community for all.
• St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented
development.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
• St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community
engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
2020 residential estimated city share of property taxes – 4.96%
General fund breakout
Property tax process video
Prepared by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing
Discussion
Background: The 2020 budget was developed with the council’s strategic priorities, Vision 3.0,
and the comprehensive plan in mind. The budget addresses the need to maintain our
infrastructure (city roads, parks, building etc.), technology, debt service, and responsive and
high quality service to the residents and businesses, which includes personnel costs for police,
fire and city staff.
• On May 13, 2019 staff and council met to discuss the 2020 budget process and the
“systems thinking” approach when considering operations, programs, policies and
opportunities for St. Louis Park.
• On June 17, 2019 staff and council met to start reviewing budget assumptions and a
property tax levy range. Staff discussed new communication tools such as our financial
transparency tool and the property tax process video.
• On July 22, 2019 staff and council met to review the public safety budgets and both the
Fire and Police chief provided information on their proposed 2020 budget and
operations.
• At the Aug. 12 and Sept. 3, 2019 study sessions, the council reviewed information from
the staff report (including staff changes and significant revenue/expenditure
adjustments) and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2020 preliminary property
tax levy change of 5.61% when compared to the 2019 final property tax levy. In
addition, the council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2020 preliminary HRA
levy at the 0.0185%, which is the maximum allowed by state statute.
• On Sept. 16, 2019, the EDA and council adopted the 2020 preliminary HRA levy of
$1,332,978. Also, the council adopted the 2020 preliminary property tax levy of
$34,985,521, which is approximately 5.61% change over the 2019 final property tax
levy.
• On Oct. 14, 2019, the council reviewed the 2020-2029 capital improvement plan (CIP),
long range financial management plan, and debt modeling assumptions.
• On Nov 12, 2019, staff and council reviewed a number of items to reduce the final levy
to 4.96%.
Budget communication: As council is aware, we continue to offer more information and
transparent budget process. Information is provided through the webpage and having an
active e-mail address for any questions that arise. We also for the third year did a 2020 budget
video for Facebook. We also created a property tax process video and launched a financial
transparency tool. This is in addition, to other forms of communication such as the article on
the property tax process in the park perspective, posting budget staff reports for example.
Summary: 2020 preliminary adopted levy and updated 2020 levy.
1. The 2020 preliminary property tax levy was adopted on September 16 at $34,985,521,
which is approximately 5.61% more than the 2019 final Levy.
2. The updated property tax levy being considered on December 2 at $34,770,521, which is
approximately 4.96% more than the 2019 final levy.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing
The proposed breakdown of the 4.96% proposed 2020 property tax levy by fund
2019 2020 $ Change % Change
Final Levy Proposed 2019 to 2020 2019 to 2020
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund (1)26,880,004$ 27,432,167$ 552,163$ 2.05%
Environment and Sustainability (1)- 497,484 497,484
Race Equity and Inclusion (1)- 314,077 314,077
Council programs (1)150,000 150,000
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 860,000 50,000 6.17%
Capital Replacement Fund 1,767,700 1,567,700 (200,000) -11.31%
Debt Service-current 3,420,557 3,799,093 378,536 11.07%
Employee Benefit Fund 150,000 150,000 - 0.00%
Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 - (100,000) -100.00%
33,128,261$ 34,770,521$ 1,642,260$ 4.96%
(1)= Line items are part of the General Fund levy, separated so council can see investment in strategic priorities.
HRA Levy: Based on current and future infrastructure needs, the HRA levy is recommended to be
set at the maximum allowed of 0.0185% of estimated market value, which is consistent with
previous years. The amount for 2020 is estimated at $1,332,978. The HRA levy is being directed
to fund direct housing related salaries to run the housing programs and a transfer to the newly
created housing trust fund.
Utility Rates-Water, Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste Funds: As previously reviewed and
approved, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility
rate adjustments would be an increase of $18.04/quarter, or approximately $6.01 per month.
The calculation is based on a household using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), a
20-unit winter sewer average and 60-gallon solid waste service. As you are aware, we have
changes in both our solid waste and water programs to allow residents the opportunity to lower
their own rates by conservation and reduction in their solid waste amounts. 2019 will provide us
time to gather information on residents’ usage and program changes.
Estimated city impact for 2020 – example on median value home: Based on a 5.61% levy
increase (preliminary levy) on a median value residential homestead property that increased in
value from $275,100 to $297,900, the city’s portion of the property taxes were estimated to
increase by about $73.80 in 2020, or $6.15 per month.
Based on the 4.96% levy increase on a median value residential homestead property that
increased in value from $275,100 to $297,900, the city’s portion of the property taxes are
estimated to increase by about $65.51 in 2020, or $5.46 per month.
2019 Budget amendments: A budget amendment in the general fund for 2019 was council
approving the Windsource agreement with Xcel Energy in 2019. Given the city joined the program
mid-year, the budget change was $57,000. This ongoing 3-year agreement is budgeted at
$98,000 in the various utility budgets in 2020.
Next steps: As the 2020 budget process nears completion, the following steps remain.
December 9 (If needed) - Public hearing continuation and any budget discussion.
December 16 Council adopts 2020 budgets, final tax levies (City and HRA), and 2020 - 2029 CIP.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
2020 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY
4.96% INCREASE
* These are estimated figures at particular price points.
Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Val.Taxable Taxable Estimated City Tax Dollar Dollar Percent
2018 For 2019 For %Market Market 2019 2020 Change Change Change
Pay 2019 Pay 2020 Change Value 2019 Value 2020 Annual Per Month
225,200 241,900 7.4%208,228 226,431 930.88 976.35 45.46 3.79 4.9%
252,600 275,300 9.0%238,094 262,837 1,064.40 1,133.33 68.93 5.74 6.5%
275,100 297,900 8.3%262,619 287,471 1,174.04 1,239.55 65.51 5.46 5.6%
284,100 309,600 9.0%272,429 300,224 1,217.89 1,294.54 76.64 6.39 6.3%
366,700 382,500 4.3%362,463 379,685 1,620.39 1,637.16 16.77 1.40 1.0%
Assumptions:
2019 and 2020 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
= Median Value Home in St. Louis Park
Assessed Market Val.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing Page 4
2020 As A
2019 2020 % of Total
Adopted Proposed Proposed
Budget Budget $% Budget
Revenues
General Property Taxes 26,880,004$ 28,393,728$ 1,513,724$ 6% 68%
Licenses and Permits 4,103,424 4,660,811 557,387 14% 11%
Intergovernmental 1,760,900 1,760,082 (818) 0% 4%
Charges for Services 2,187,319 2,273,824 86,505 4% 5%
Fines and Forfeits 279,700 280,000 300 0% 1%
Interest Income 180,000 210,000 30,000 17% 1%
Miscellaneous 1,367,012 2,044,602 677,590 50% 5%
Other Income 31,300 29,550 (1,750) -6% 0%
Transfers In 1,999,877 2,038,338 38,461 2% 5%
Use of Fund Balance *298,156 3,230 (294,926) -99% 0%
Total Revenues 39,087,692$ 41,694,165$ 2,606,473$ 6.7% 100%
Expenditures
General Government
Administration 1,837,620$ 1,643,599$ (194,021)$ -11% 4%
Finance 1,034,199 1,124,045 89,846 9% 3%
Assessing 772,746 808,171 35,425 5% 2%
Human Resources 805,620 823,209 17,589 2% 2%
Community Development 1,502,521 1,571,894 69,373 5% 4%
Facilities Maintenance 1,170,211 1,265,337 95,126 8% 3%
Information Technology 1,674,937 1,709,255 34,318 2% 4%
Communications and Marketing 805,674 828,004 22,330 3% 2%
Total General Government 9,603,528$ 9,773,514$ 169,986$ 2% 23%
Public Safety
Police 10,335,497$ 10,853,821$ 518,324$ 5% 26%
Fire 4,813,078 5,040,703 227,625 5% 12%
Building 2,555,335 2,696,585 141,250 6% 6%
Total Public Safety 17,703,910$ 18,591,109$ 887,199$ 5% 45%
Operations
Public Works Administration 290,753$ 273,318$ (17,435)$ -6% 1%
Public Works Operations 3,111,481 3,331,966 220,485 7% 8%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,242,236 1,278,827 36,591 3% 3%
Engineering 570,377 551,285 (19,092) -3% 1%
Total Operations 5,214,847$ 5,435,396$ 220,549$ 1% 13%
Parks and Recreation
Organized Recreation 1,579,569$ 1,637,002$ 57,433$ 4% 4%
Recreation Center 1,949,657 2,061,394 111,737 6% 5%
Park Maintenance 1,833,297 1,906,363 73,066 4% 5%
Westwood Hills Nature Center 643,750 748,683 104,933 16% 2%
Natural Resources 484,784 504,143 19,359 4% 1%
Total Parks and Recreation 6,491,057$ 6,857,585$ 366,528$ 6% 16%
Other
Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ 314,077$ 314,077$ N/A 1%
Sustainability - 497,484 497,484 N/A 1%
Council programs 150,000 150,000 N/A 0%
Contingency 74,350 75,000 650 1% 0%
Total Other 74,350$ 1,036,561$ 962,211$ 2%
Total Expenditures 39,087,692$ 41,694,165$ 2,606,473$ 6.7% 100%
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures -$ -$
* E-911 capital outlay related expenditures to be paid from fund balance
2019-2020
General Fund Comparative Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
(preliminary)
Change from
2019 to 2020
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2020 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing Page 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report and approving
the staff recommended layout for the Dakota Avenue corridor from Minnetonka Boulevard to
Lake Street.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to continue to pursue the installation of
the bikeway segment identified in this report?
Summary: Connect the Park is the city’s 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP) to add
bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the
Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that
provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability.
This report focuses on the segment of the Dakota Avenue bikeway from Minnetonka Boulevard
to Lake Street. The segment of the Dakota Avenue bikeway from Minnetonka Avenue to Cedar
Lake Road was approved for final design by council on May 6, 2019.
The recommended layout includes buffered bike lanes, curb extensions at each intersection, a
rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at 33rd Street, installation of parking restrictions on
one side of Dakota Avenue, and modifications to existing side street parking restrictions.
A public hearing was held on Nov. 18, 2019 for this segment. This report provides additional
information on the questions and comments presented by the community and council during
the public hearing.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement
plan (CIP) for 2019. The project will be paid for using general obligation bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
November 12, 2019 study session report (pages 273 – 301)
November 18, 2019 public hearing report (pages 47 – 49)
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer
Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
Discussion
Background: The Dakota Avenue corridor is centrally located and is a key north-south
connection that will enhance walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as
parks, schools, businesses, regional trails, and Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). The
segment from Minnetonka Boulevard to Cedar Lake Road was approved for final design by the
Council on May 6, 2019. This report focuses on the Dakota Avenue bikeway segment from
Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street.
Information regarding this project was shared with council at the Nov. 12, 2019 study session.
The study session report, which includes recommendations for the elements to include in the
project, is attached. The recommended layout for Dakota Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard
to Lake Street can be seen in the council report. This retrofit of Dakota Avenue includes:
•Buffered bike lanes (5-foot lane, 2-foot buffer)
•Curb extensions at each intersection
•Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crossing Dakota Avenue at 33rd Street
adjacent to the high school.
•Parking restrictions on one side of the street (80 parking stalls to remain)
•Removal of timed parking restrictions
o On select side streets adjacent to Dakota Avenue
o On Dakota Avenue north of 33rd Street
An overview of the recommended design for this project was presented at the Nov. 18, 2019
city council meeting. A summary of the information in that public hearing report is as follows:
•Study session discussion topics
•Estimated construction costs
•Updated project schedule
The mayor opened the public hearing inviting members of the public to speak regarding the
recommended design. Testimony was received by 14 residents and by the Council.
Public hearing comments and staff responses: The comments received by the community and
by Council are grouped into multiple categories and discussed in greater detail as follows:
Comments related to parking:
•When was the existing parking study completed?
Parking data throughout the corridor was collected in the weeks of August 27 and
September 10, 2018. The counts were collected on weekdays at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 6 p.m. and
midnight.
•How many parking spaces are lost as a result of this project?
The recommended layout provides 80 parallel parking stalls. Of the 175 existing parking
spaces on Dakota Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street, 95 are proposed to be
removed.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
•Do parking calculations consider the driveways?
Yes, the parking calculations for the existing and the proposed condition consider parking
restrictions and regulations regarding driveways, stop signs, hydrants, and alleys.
•What are the addresses along Dakota Avenue that are proposed to not have on-street
parking directly in front of the parcel and that are not served by an alley?
There are six (6) properties that meet these criteria:
o 6324 and 6325 33rd Street W.
o 3325, 3329, 3333, and 3341 Dakota Avenue.
•Can there be parking restrictions along the side streets (such as 32nd or 33rd Street) to
provide better access to the dead-end alleys?
Additional review of potential parking restrictions on the adjacent side streets will be
completed as part of the final design and will be brought back to the council as part of the
final plan approval. Modifications to parking restrictions can be recommended to council at
any time in the future to address concerns as they are identified.
•Will there be enough room for buses turning on to 32nd Street if there are cars parked on
both sides of the road?
Additional review of bus turning movements and routing will be completed as a part of the
final plan design and will be brought back to the council as a part of the final plan approval.
Modifications to parking restrictions can be recommended to council at any time in the
future to address concerns as they are identified.
•If the high school parking permit zone on 32nd and 33rd Streets are removed, how do we
ensure that those spaces are available for Dakota Avenue residents to use?
The city can monitor parking usage in this area. Modifications to parking restrictions can be
recommended to council at any time in the future to address concerns as they are
identified.
•Can the parallel on-street parking spaces be striped?
The city does not recommend painting parallel parking spaces on streets for the following
reasons:
o There is greater flexibility in how many vehicles can fit on the street without
markings. Parallel parking spaces are striped at 20-foot intervals. Not all vehicles
require the full 20 feet. Not having marked parallel parking spaces oftentimes results
in more cars being accommodated.
o These stripes require repainting every few years. There are increased labor costs
associated with this type of striping.
•Can the empty lots near Parkway Pizza and Oak Knoll Animal Hospital be made into parking
lots?
The empty lots in question, 3000, 3008, 3012, and 3016 Colorado Avenue, are private
property. The city does not have the authority to require public parking or access to this area.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
Comments related to alley modifications:
•Can the dead-end gravel alley east of Dakota Avenue and north of 31st Street be modified to
create access to the north?
This is currently a private alley. The city has sent letters to all six property owners to
understand their desire to dedicate property to transform this to a public alley. Currently,
only three property owners have responded supporting this conversion. Staff will continue
to work with the property owners to understand possible next steps. The parcels to the
north and east of the dead-end alley (3008, 3012, and 3016 Colorado Avenue) are privately
owned. The city would have to purchase land from the private property owner to extend
this dead-end alley across these parcels.
Comments related to use of Dakota Avenue:
•How will the proposed design accommodate snow removal at bump-outs?
Our operations department was consulted during the design process. The proposed layout
incorporates design elements to accommodate snow removal at the bump-outs. This is like
the design of Texas Avenue south of Minnetonka Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road east of
Louisiana Avenue.
•Can there be additional attention to the driveway at 2211 Edgewood by installing red
flashing lights for trail users?
The location in question, 2211 Edgewood Avenue, is not located on this segment of
bikeway. It is located on the bikeway segment from Minnetonka Boulevard to Cedar Lake
Road, which was approved for final design by the Council on May 6, 2019. Staff will work
with the property owner to further understand what they are asking from the city.
•Where do ambulances and delivery vehicles park to access my home?
The traffic regulations for emergency vehicles is under state statute 169.03. When at the
scene of a reported emergency, emergency vehicles may park or stand anywhere regardless
of any existing restrictions.
In other areas of the city, delivery vehicles have been observed using the bike lane for active
loading and unloading. For longer duration activities, the delivery vehicle should use an on-
street parking space.
•Are there ways to improve the lighting along Dakota Avenue?
All the intersections along Dakota Avenue have Xcel Energy pole-mounted street lights
except for 31st Street (east). Staff could reach out to Xcel to install a light at this location.
To install street lights at more regular intervals would require a new city-owned lighting
system. It is estimated to cost $190,000 to install lighting along Dakota Avenue from Lake
Street to Minnetonka Boulevard.
Comments related to alternative bikeway designs:
•What is the estimated cost to replace one of the sidewalks with a multi-use trail?
The construction cost to replace one of the sidewalks with an 8-foot-wide multi-use trail is
estimated at $650,000. The estimate does not include any of the traffic calming or
pedestrian safety measures in the recommended layout.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
The trail would need to be installed on the west side of Dakota Avenue at the back of curb
to fit within the current right of way. There will be impacts to some of the existing trees,
driveways, outwalks, and the need for retaining walls at various locations.
•Could the buffered bike lanes be transitioned into protected bike lanes for a trial period?
The current design has a two-foot space between the edge of the travel lane and the bike
lane. This space allows for a small buffer between the vehicles and the bikes. The space is
wide enough that vertical delineation, in the form of bollards, could be installed on a trial
basis.
Since this would be its first application within the city, a trial period would be beneficial to
understand the best way to implement this type of design. We recommend starting with a
seasonal installation that would be removed from late October (leaf pick-up) and replaced
in April/May after winter street sweeping activities are completed.
The cost to run a pilot program is based on its design and how long it is implemented. The
range currently is $50,000 to $100,000. If council directs staff to proceed with a protected
bikeway pilot project, we will work on a more refined plan and present it to council as part
of the final plan approval in Spring 2020. This plan would include the recommended
locations, the duration of the pilot project, cost to install and maintain, analysis of the pilot,
and data collection.
Financial considerations: This project is funded using general obligation (GO) bonds. Estimated
project costs are $443,000.
Proposed schedule
The schedule for this project is intended to merge with the Dakota/Edgewood bikeway and
bridge project. Addition field survey work will be needed in the March/April of 2020. This
survey work dictates the following schedule:
Approve preliminary layout and authorize final plans Dec. 2, 2019
City council – approve final plans and order ad for bid Spring 2020
Construction Summer 2020 – Fall 2020
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000)
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution accepting the project report, establishing
Improvement Project No. 4019-2000 for Dakota South Bikeways, approving the
staff recommend layout for the project and authorizing the design of final plans.
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Project Engineer related to the Dakota Avenue South bikeway – Project No. 4019-2000 and,
Whereas, this project report consists of bikeways on Dakota Avenue from Lake Street to
Minnetonka Boulevard; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make
their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The project report regarding Project Nos. 4019-2000 Dakota South Bikeways is
hereby accepted.
2.Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as
detailed in the project report.
3.The preliminary layout for the bikeways is hereby approved and final plan
development is authorized.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Action agenda item: 8b
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending the zoning
map under chapter 36 and set second reading for Dec. 16, 2019. (Five votes required due to one
split zoned property. Four votes required if excluding split zoned property.)
Policy consideration: Does the council support rezoning the properties from C-2 to C-1?
Summary: On February 20, 2018, the city council directed staff to consider options for limiting
the size of businesses within commercial districts. The intent is to avoid big box and junior box
stores in certain areas where they would be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood,
and to promote smaller businesses. Since then, staff conducted several discussions in study
session with the planning commission and city council which resulted in the following steps to
be taken:
1. Rezoned several properties to be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This step
was completed on August 19, 2019.
2. Amended the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district to establish maximum size limits for
retail and service uses. This amendment was completed on September 16, 2019.
3. Rezone 87 properties from the C-2 General Commercial district to the C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial district. This is the subject of this proposed action.
Public process: The following steps were taken as part of the rezoning process:
1. Planning commission conducted a study session on October 16, 2019. They reviewed the
subject properties and agreed with including them in the process.
2. Neighborhood meeting was held on November 7, 2019. Owners of the subject properties,
and property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties were notified of the
proposed action.
3. The planning commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2019. Notices were
mailed. The residents that spoke were in favor of the changes. Three people representing
the owner of the property at 5825 Excelsior Blvd. opposed the zoning change for 5825
Excelsior Blvd. and asked that it be removed from the proposed rezoning. Also, the property
owner of 6001-6009 Excelsior Blvd. submitted a letter in advance of the public hearing in
opposition to the rezoning of 6001-6009 Excelsior Blvd.
The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Ordinance, property exhibits, property owner letters,
excerpt of planning commission minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Discussion
Background: On February 20, 2018, the city council directed staff to consider options for
limiting the size of businesses within commercial districts. The intent is to avoid big box and
junior box stores in certain areas where they would be out of scale with the surrounding
neighborhood, and to promote smaller businesses. Since then, staff conducted several
discussions in study session with the planning commission and city council which resulted in the
following steps to be taken:
1. Rezone several properties from the C-2 General Commercial district to another zoning
district to be consistent with the approved 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This step was
completed on August 19, 2019.
2. Process an amendment to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district to establish maximum
size limits for retail and service uses. The amendment allows staff to approve retail and
service uses up to 7,500 square feet. It also allows a property to have up to 10,000 square
feet of cumulative retail and service uses. This amendment was completed on September
16, 2019, and it is now in effect.
3. Rezone 78 properties from the C-2 General Commercial district to the C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial district. This is the proposal that is currently under consideration.
Planning commission study session: Staff most recently presented the recommended zoning
map changes to the planning commission in a study session on October 16, 2019. The planning
commission indicated support for staff to hold a neighborhood information meeting regarding
the proposal for all these properties.
Neighborhood meeting: The neighborhood meeting was conducted on November 7, 2019.
Notices were mailed to the subject property owners and to property owners within 350 feet of
the subject properties. People from 23 households and 4 commercial properties attended.
Generally speaking, residents were in favor of the changes, and commercial property owners
asked questions without stating their opinions on the proposal.
Planning commission public hearing: The planning commission conducted a public hearing on
November 20, 2019. Comments were received from several residents surrounding the
commercial areas in support of the rezoning.
Three people representing the owner of the property at 5825 Excelsior Blvd. spoke in
opposition of including 5825 Excelsior Blvd. in the amendment. A summary of their comments
is provided in the unofficial meeting minutes attached to this report. The property at 5825
Excelsior Boulevard is pictured below. It is surrounded on the west, south and east by single-
family. It is also adjacent on the west, north and east by properties currently zoned C-2 but are
included in the proposed amendment to rezone to C-1. Two properties to the west are zoned
RC high-density multiple-family residence and are improved with one story, multi-tenant office
buildings.
5825 Excelsior Blvd. is 116,000 square feet in area and is improved with a 61,000 square foot
building. It includes two stories of office space in the front, and warehouse space in the back.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
The property is occupied by Party City and Midwest Homebrewing. There is 24,000 square feet
of vacant space available on the second floor.
Staff met with the property owner Monday, November 25, 2019 to review the property owner’s
concerns about the rezoning request. Staff reviewed the C-1 and C-2 zoning regulations as
pertains to the occupancy of this property. Staff also reviewed the legal non-conforming status,
and how that pertains to this property. The property owner submitted a letter asking his
property to be removed from the rezoning proposal.
The city also received an email in advance of the public hearing from the owner of the property
at 6001-6009 Excelsior Blvd. in opposition to the rezoning of that parcel of land on the
southwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Brookside Avenue South.
Both written communications are attached for your information. Highway 100 Railroad Alabama Avenue S RC
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Split-zoned property. One parcel is split zoned, meaning it lies within two zoning districts. The
parcel identified below is zoned R-4 Multiple-Family Residence on the west half, and C-2
General Commercial on the east half. The property is improved with a small office building. The
proposal is to rezone the entire property C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. State statute requires
a two-thirds vote when rezoning a property from residential to commercial. Therefore, the
council may in one motion approve the first reading to rezone all properties if the motion
passes with a two-thirds vote. Otherwise, the council may remove this property from the
motion, and approve rezoning the remaining properties with a majority motion.
Next steps: An open house will be conducted for the property owners and business owners
impacted by the proposed rezoning. Staff will also invite the property owners located within
350 feet of the subject properties. Staff is expecting to hold this meeting the week of November
4, 2019.
A public hearing before the planning commission is tentatively scheduled for November 20,
2019.
Supporting documents: The properties proposed for rezoning are illustrated on the
attached exhibits.
Zoning Analysis: Below is the purpose of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial districts and the C-
2 General Commercial districts as stated in the ordinance:
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district:
The purpose of this C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district is to provide for low-intensity,
service-oriented commercial uses for surrounding residential neighborhoods. Limits will be
placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in this district to ensure and
protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas.
C-2 General Commercial district.
The purposes of the C-2 General Commercial district are to:
(1) Allow the concentration of general commercial development for convenience of the
public and mutually beneficial relationship to each other in those areas located away
from residential areas designated by the comprehensive plan;
(2) Provide space for community facilities and institutions that appropriately may be
located in commercial areas;
(3) Provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development,
including off-street parking and truck loading areas;
(4) Minimize traffic congestion; and
Minnetonka Boulevard Texas Avenue SITE
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
(5) Carefully regulate the intensity of commercial development as it refers to both
internal site factors and external impacts.
The properties selected for rezoning to C-1 fit the purpose of the C-1 district.
1. They are directly adjacent to residential properties.
2. They are small properties, generally the lots are 3,000 to 60,000 square feet in area. The
average is approximately 15,000 square feet. There is one property that is 116,000 square
feet.
3. The businesses are small, and with a few exceptions, meet the 10,000 square foot
maximum requirement of the C-1 district.
Legal non-conformities resulting from the change. Staff identified the following non-
conformities that would result from the rezoning:
The C-1 district limits retail and service business size to 10,000 square feet, and would
therefore result in the following non-conformities:
• 7200 Cedar Lake Rd – Walgreens is approximately 11,000 square feet.
• 8225 Highway 7 – Commercial mall corner of Highway 7 and Blake Road is
approximately 19,000 square feet.
• 4320 Excelsior Blvd – Opitz Outlet is approximately 12,000 square feet.
• 4140 Excelsior Blvd – Slumberland is approximately 11,000 square feet.
• 5825 Excelsior Blvd – This building is approximately 61,000 square feet and contains a
mix of uses. It would become legally non-conforming because the cumulative size of the
retail and service tenants exceeds 10,000 square feet. Party City is approximately 12,000
square feet, and Midwest Supplies is approximately 23,000 square feet. Another retail
use would not be permitted in this building unless one of the other retail uses
downsized to accommodate it.
Liquor stores are not permitted in the C-1 district, and would therefore result in the
following non-conforming uses:
• 7924 Highway 7 – Knollwood Liquors.
• 8240 Minnetonka Blvd – Texa Tonka Liquors.
Motor vehicle repair is not permitted in the C-1 district, and would therefore result in the
following non-conformities:
• 4200 Excelsior Blvd - Midas.
• 5608 Excelsior Blvd – Autosurf Café.
• 5925 Excelsior Blvd – Youngstedts.
• 8001 Minnetonka Blvd – D & D auto repair.
City code and state statute define the rights of legal non-conformities. In summary, the legal
non-conforming uses would be able to:
1. Continue to operate as is.
2. Perform maintenance on the use and buildings.
3. Improve the use and buildings without increasing the size of the uses.
4. Sell the business. A new owner could continue to operate the business as is.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
5. Replace the use with a similar use. For example, an 11,000 square foot shoe store can
be replaced by an 11,000 square foot apparel store.
The legal non-conforming use cannot:
1. Increase in size.
2. Increase in intensity. For example, a non-conforming retail use cannot be replaced by
another retail use that would significantly increase traffic.
3. Return to a previous non-conforming use if the use converts to a use complies with
code. For example:
• If an 11,000 square foot retail use reduces its size to 10,000 square feet, it would not
be able to go back to 11,000 square feet.
• If a liquor store or auto repair use stops operating and is replaced by another use
that meets code, then the liquor store or auto repair shop cannot be re-established
in the future.
Recommendation: The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the
zoning map amendments as proposed.
Four votes are required except for one property that is split zoned RC High-Density Multiple-Family
and C-2 General Commercial. That parcel requires five votes. The parcel is 8300 Minnetonka Blvd
and is improved with a one-story office use.
Next steps: The council may approve the rezoning of all properties as proposed, or table all or
specific parcels, or remove properties from the proposed zoning map amendment and proceed
to the second reading.
The council may not add properties to the proposed zoning map amendment without restarting
the process because only those properties identified in this rezoning request were served
formal notice.
If the council approves the first reading, then the second reading will be scheduled for council
action on December 16, 2019.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Ordinance No. ___-19
Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park official zoning map
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (Case No. 19-26-ZA).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park official zoning map is hereby amended by changing the
zoning district boundaries to reclassify the parcels indicated in the attached list.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 16, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First Reading December 2, 2019
Second Reading December 16, 2019
Date of Publication December 26, 019
Date Ordinance takes effect January 10, 2020
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Table 1: Proposed list of parcels to be rezoned to C-1
PID ADDRESS 08-117-21 33 0171 2925 TEXAS AVE S
08-117-21 33 0170 2929 TEXAS AVE S
08-117-21 33 0172 2939 TEXAS AVE S
17-117-21 22 0169 3003 TEXAS AVE S
18-117-21 11 0030 3008 TEXAS AVE S
18-117-21 11 0003 3015 UTAH AVE S
06-028-24 43 0083 3701 KIPLING AVE S
06-028-24 43 0084 3705 KIPLING AVE S
06-028-24 43 0085 3711 KIPLING AVE S
21-117-21 23 0015 3937 ALABAMA AVE S south 117 feet
21-117-21 24 0020 3952 WEBSTER AVE S
07-028-24 23 0165 3960 WOODDALE AVE
21-117-21 24 0038 3964 XENWOOD AVE S
21-117-21 24 0039 3970 XENWOOD AVE S
21-117-21 23 0151 3978 ALABAMA AVE S
21-117-21 23 0152 3982 ALABAMA AVE S
21-117-21 23 0153 3986 ALABAMA AVE S
21-117-21 23 0154 3990 ALABAMA AVE S
21-117-21 23 0126 3996 ALABAMA AVE S
21-117-21 24 0205 4015 XENWOOD AVE S
21-117-21 24 0158 4015 YOSEMITE AVE S
21-117-21 24 0157 4019 YOSEMITE AVE S
21-117-21 24 0206 4021 XENWOOD AVE S
21-117-21 23 0157 4046 BROOKSIDE AVE S
21-117-21 32 0109 4054 BROOKSIDE AVE S
06-028-24 41 0008 4100 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 41 0009 4120 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 44 0001 4140 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 44 0176 4170 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 44 0175 4200 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 11 0063 4201 MINNETONKA BLVD
06-028-24 11 0049 4221 MINNETONKA BLVD
06-028-24 43 0013 4300 36 1/2 ST W
06-028-24 43 0017 4300 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 43 0018 4306 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 43 0019 4308 EXCELSIOR BLVD
06-028-24 43 0186 4320 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 21 0512 4951 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 21 0513 4959 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 22 0023 4961 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 22 0024 4995 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 22 0025 5001 EXCELSIOR BLVD
07-028-24 23 0091 5501 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0019 5600 EXCELSIOR BLVD
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
21-117-21 24 0202 5608 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0141 5707 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0193 5717 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0040 5720 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0161 5801 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0066 5804 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0208 5809 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0067 5810 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0209 5813 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0185 5825 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0083 5900 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0196 5911 EXCELSIOR BLVD North 225 feet
21-117-21 24 0201 5912 EXCELSIOR BLVD south 117 feet
21-117-21 24 0207 5915 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0156 5916 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0010 5922 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 24 0195 5925 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0011 5930 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0097 6001 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0127 6002 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0128 6006 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0100 6011 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0155 6100 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 32 0006 6111 EXCELSIOR BLVD
21-117-21 23 0130 6112 EXCELSIOR BLVD
08-117-21 13 0134 7120 CEDAR LAKE RD
08-117-21 24 0003 2262 LOUISIANA AVE S
08-117-21 24 0065 7200 CEDAR LAKE RD
17-117-21 33 0172 7900 STATE HWY NO 7
17-117-21 22 0161 7915 MINNETONKA BLVD
08-117-21 33 0173 7916 MINNETONKA BLVD
17-117-21 22 0170 7921 MINNETONKA BLVD
17-117-21 33 0173 7924 STATE HWY NO 7
18-117-21 11 0028 8001 MINNETONKA BLVD
18-117-21 11 0029 8011 MINNETONKA BLVD
18-117-21 11 0004 8015 MINNETONKA BLVD
18-117-21 11 0005 8105 MINNETONKA BLVD
07-117-21 44 0018 8200 MINNETONKA BLVD
46 18-117-21 44 0007 8215 STATE HWY NO 7
18-117-21 44 0013 8225 STATE HWY NO 7
07-117-21 44 0019 8240 MINNETONKA BLVD
07-117-21 44 0102 8300 MINNETONKA BLVD
The public right-of-way currently zoned C-2 roughly measured as extending 182 feet north of Mtka
Blvd between Hwy 100 and Vernon Ave S
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC
Robert L. Brackey
80 Arlington Avenue E,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
Email: rlbbracs@aol.com
Telephone: 651-488-6113 Fax : 651-489-1405
=============================================================================
November 25, 2019
Gary Morrison, Assistants Zoning Administrator
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
City of St Louis Park
St. Louis Park, MN
Re: In the matter of 5825 Excelsior Blvd as Affected by the Plan of
Rezoning C-2 General Commercial properties to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
Case Number: 19-26-ZA
Dear Gary and Sean:
Thank you for meeting my representatives this morning to discuss the above captioned matter.
I am the President of Kil Ben Excelsior LLC, which owns 5825 Excelsior Boulevard, one of the 78
properties included in the rezoning plan referenced above. (For ease of reference, I will sometimes
refer to our property as “5825”).
I am writing to you to express our support of the plan to rezone 77 of the properties from C-2 to C-1 and
to express my request to you to recommend to the City Council at the Public Hearing on December 2nd
that they withdraw 5825 Excelsior from their approval of the rezoning plan until the City Council, the
planning staff, and we have been able to study the full impact of the rezoning proposal on our
property.
In your summary of the rezoning plan, you stated that the “intent” of the plan is to “avoid big box and
junior box stores in certain areas where they would be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood,
and to promote smaller businesses.”
Your summary also states the “purposes” of a C-1 neighborhood commercial district:
“… to provide for low-intensity, service oriented commercial uses for surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Limits will be placed on the type, size and intensity of commercial uses in this
district to ensure and protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas.”
We believe that the intent and purpose of the rezoning plan fits all the properties to be rezoned except
5825 Excelsior.
First, the intent of the rezoning plan will not avoid big box and junior box stores at 5825 because 5825 is
already there. Rezoning this property will not transform this property – 61,000 square feet of building
space on 116,000 square feet of land – into the small retail shops and low intensity uses serving the
surrounding residential neighborhoods that the rezoning plan envisions.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Second, the purpose of the C-1 district properties may fit the other 77 properties selected to be rezoned
but they don’t fit 5825. Your summary of the plan makes this clear in describing the criteria you used to
select the properties to be rezoned:
1. They are directly adjacent to residential properties.
2. They are small properties, generally the lots are 3,000 to 60,000 square feet in area. The
average is approximately 15,000 square feet. There is one property that is 116,000 square feet.
3. The businesses are small, and with few exceptions, meet the 10,000 square foot maximum
requirement of the C-1 district.
None of these criteria fit 5825.
More significantly, the low intensity service oriented commercial uses serving the surrounding
neighborhoods from this building will not happen. Not now, not in the future. What will happen to this
property? Large 20,000 square foot –plus users in an office-warehouse- showroom building like this are
very hard to find. We may very well see vacancies of a year or more when the terms of the current
tenants expire in a few years.
The grandfather rules – the legal nonconforming use protection - will not apply if the current tenants
leave and new tenants needing the same amount of space for the same or similar purpose cannot be
found within a year.
What happens to this property then? A large, white elephant, the best looking building on this portion of
Excelsior Boulevard will be sitting empty, or with scattered small space users, which will not make the
property financially viable.
Third, in deciding whether the property is “out of scale” with the surrounding neighborhoods, we
should take a look at the surrounding residential neighborhoods. We enclose photographs depicting the
view from inside of the building to the surrounding neighborhoods on the north, on the east, and the
south, and the west.
What do all these photographs have in common? No “surrounding residential neighborhoods” are even
visible. What we see are gas stations, a restaurant and bar, and railroad tracks over which trains pass 3
to 5 times per day. We believe it is safe to say that none of the areas surrounding 5825 will go away with
rezoning.
Significantly, no member of the public objected at the planning commission’s public hearing about our
request to remove our property from the rezoning proposal; in today’s meeting, we understood you to
say that we have been a responsible property owner for the 25 years we have owned the property.
If you eliminate the uses available under C-2 but that are prohibited under C-1, both as to size and use,
coupled with the likely loss of the grandfather protection because of the difficulty of finding future
tenants needing the same amount of space and with the same or similar use is nearly insurmountable.
The City will have effectively reduced the market for leasing the property by an as yet unquantifiable
amount, which will consequently reduce the sale value of the property by an as yet unquantified
amount, but which will almost certainly reach into the millions.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
In short, the city rezoning plan may be good for the other properties dissimilar to 5825 but it will be bad
for this property owner, does not serve the intent or purpose of the rezoning plan and will have a
devastating impact on the property value.
We are aware that the planning commission had only a few minutes to hear our concerns at its public
hearing before it made its recommendation to the City Council for approving the plan, so we respectfully
request the City Council to temporarily remove 5825 from the rezoning plan until we have had an
opportunity to more thoroughly review whether 5825 Excelsior serves the intent and purpose of the
rezoning plan.
Sincerely,
KIL BEN EXCELSIOR, LLC
Robert Brackey, President.
Page 22 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Page 23 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Page 24 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Page 25 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Page 26 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Page 27 City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 28
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 20, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin,
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
3.Public Hearings
A.Rezoning C-2 General Commercial properties to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case Nos: 19-26-ZA
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report.
The proposed rezoning is the final step taken with the intent of preserving and
encouraging small businesses in neighborhood settings. Earlier this year the council
rezoned several properties to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. That rezoning
was followed-up with a text amendment to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district
to limit the size of retail and service establishments. The proposed rezoning of
properties to the C-1 district is now proposed with the C-1 text amendment in place.
Mr. Morrison showed slides of Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Area, the Texa-Tonka area,
Knollwood Mall Area, several areas along Excelsior Blvd. and Hwy. 100 and Minnetonka
Blvd., all of which are proposed to change to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing.
Jim McGovern, representing the owner of 5825 Excelsior Blvd, commercial advisor,
stated they do not oppose the rezoning plan, but oppose rezoning 5825 Excelsior Blvd.
He stated this does not fit the intent or the purpose of the rezoning related to big box
stores. He added the purpose of the rezoning is not appropriate for this building, stating
there will not be small shops within the building. Mr. McGovern added even with
grandfathering the property in - it is difficult to find tenants that will use 75,000 square
feet when their leases run out, and several are about to run out soon. He asked that this
property be excluded from the rezoning plan.
Tom Goodrum, Loucks Consulting, stated he is representing 5825 Excelsior Blvd as well.
He stated this is difficult to deal with in making this C-1, adding not a lot of uses transfer
over from C2 to C1, and especially as it relates to tenants or proposed tenants that
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 29
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
might use this space. He stated this building does not fit the small retail building
purpose, adding it has residential behind it. He asked if the commission could take more
time to review this property. He added land uses can work together, but asked for
further review by the commission on this issue.
Brian Alton, 951 Grand Ave, St. Paul, MN 55105, stated he is representing the 5825
Excelsior Blvd property also. He stated this would have a devastating effect on the
property itself. He stated it is a unique parcel and on a busy street, near a railroad, built
well with large tenants and large spaces. He stated C-1 is not appropriate use for this
property. He added this is a restriction of good uses of properties such as this one. He
stated this is also inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.
Andrew Hoffer, 3966 Alabama Ave, stated they like the way the commission is planning
the neighborhood, adding this is a very good way to maintain the integrity of their
neighborhood. He stated the residential neighborhood supports the commission’s
decision.
Larry Lessley, 2965 Brunswick Ave, stated this is a great move for the neighborhood. He
stated they are all for progress, and the development must fit the neighborhood. He
added they are supportive of the plan.
Chris Kasic, 3916 Colorado Ave, stated he is also in favor of the rezoning, and agrees
with the previous two speakers. He stated this fits well with the neighborhood as well,
adding this will help to not have large buildings built in this neighborhood area.
Susan Bloomgren, 3961 Brunswick Ave, stated she is also in support of the rezoning and
appreciates keeping the small neighborhood feel alive while also progressing and
developing the area.
Barb Castagna, 6002 Excelsior Blvd, she supports this and also owns Educational
Outfitters, noting her biggest concern is safety for children as they shop for their school
uniforms. She stated 50% of her business is done between July and Labor Day, and she is
concerned about parking near the business, and that it be safe for all who shop at this
store.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison referred to the Party City building and asked staff for
clarification on the owner’s ability to lease the building.
Mr. Morrison stated the zoning refers to retail, and not to restaurants, showrooms,
banks, offices, indoor entertainment. He noted there are several uses that could go into
the building. Mr. Morrison added staff can work with the owners on the issues of
concern.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about resale of the building, and if the space
leased can be continued.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 30
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Mr. Morrison stated the building and businesses can be sold and operated in the same
manner as they currently are. Non-conformities can continue as is, and they can be
replaced by a similar type use and similar size as what is in there currently.
Commissioner Robertson stated this is the first time the commission is hearing about
the 5825 Excelsior Ave. building issue. He stated he does not see a negative impact on
the building to rezone it, but added he is not the owner of the building. He stated this
could have been discussed further at study sessions.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if later this building is sold to a different
developer who may want high density development, how it would be impacted, also in
light of the Brookside neighborhood, and what could be redeveloped there in a C-1
zone.
Commissioner Robertson stated this feels a bit awkward if it’s the only building zoned C-
2 within the C-1 district. He hopes the owner of the property has had an opportunity to
discuss this.
Chair Eckholm asked if this property could be removed from the zoning for further
discussion.
Mr. Walther stated action on this parcel could be tabled this evening and come back at a
later date for discussion and decision, and also re-opening the public hearing specific to
this parcel, or move it along with notes, or hold up the vote as a whole.
Mr. Walther added this was going to move to city council at the December 2 meeting for
a first reading.
Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated they would like
to move this forward to vote and then have council review in December.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison added if the council were to pull this building out for
further consideration, she recommends the neighborhood impacted would be involved
in future discussions and meetings.
Commissioner Beneke asked how far the non-conforming goes. Can they tear down the
building and re-build it, can they rearrange interior walls? What is allowed.
Mr. Morrison stated the building could be rebuilt if destroyed or torn down. It would
have to be re-built to the same dimensions and cannot be made more non-conforming.
Commissioner Erwin noted the 5825 building concerns about the ability to lease it in the
future, were addressed in that it can still utilized it in the same way without any further
hindering of the building.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8b) Page 31
Title: First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1
Commissioner Dumalag stated the commission needs to look forward related to
development within the city, she hopes the owners work with the city staff on future
uses of the building, especially as leases roll over.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Dumalag seconded,
recommending approval of the rezoning C-2 General Commercial properties to C-1
Neighborhood Commercial.
The motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Mr. Walther stated this will come before the council at the December 2 meeting for first
reading and review.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Action agenda item: 8c
Executive summary
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-361
pertaining to off-street parking and set second reading for Dec. 16, 2019.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to amend Section 36-361 to establish parking
regulations for the Historic Walker Lake area and additional city-wide parking regulations?
Summary: The amendment to the parking ordinance would create regulations specific to
Historic Walker Lake and establish additional regulations that apply to all properties in the city.
The ability to remove the minimum parking requirements is unique to the Historic Walker Lake
area because of the availability of on-street parking and municipal parking lots located within
the area. This change further supports the goal of reuse and revitalization of the existing
buildings in the district. The proposed parking regulations would:
1.Remove minimum parking requirements for any uses occupying an existing building.
2.Require a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces for new construction and
building expansions.
3.Require properties to maintain the number of existing on-site parking spaces.
The regulations were presented to the Historic Walker Lake business association on two
separate occasions. Both times they expressed their support of the ordinance.
The proposed ordinance also includes regulations that apply to all properties in the city,
including the Historic Walker Lake area. The intent is to ensure parking lots are being utilized
for customer and employee parking as required by code. These provisions require parking lots
to be used in a safe manner and as intended by the parking section of the zoning ordinance.
1.Prohibit using drive aisles and driveways for any purpose that prevents vehicle access to
parking spaces or inhibit emergency service response.
2.Require all parking spaces open directly to an aisle or driveway so that the use of the spaces
will be unimpeded.
3.Require parking spaces be marked with painted lines, or similar markings.
The planning commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2019. No comments were
received. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Discussion
Background: The proposed regulations specific to the Historic Walker Lake area have been part
of the discussions with area businesses, the city council and planning commission, and are an
important component to implementation of the Historic Walker Lake small area plan. This change
further supports the goal of reuse and revitalization of the existing buildings in the district.
While the branding and planning for Historic Walker Lake have already resulted in significant
public and private improvements and investments in the area, work continues on the
development of a new zoning district that will further implement the recommendations of the
Historic Walker Lake small area plan. It is anticipated that the ordinance will be completed in
the second quarter of 2020.
Updating parking regulations, however, continues to be an immediate need. Therefore, staff
propose to proceed with a parking ordinance first. Land use regulations and other performance
standards will follow. The new parking regulations could be adopted by the end of the year.
Zoning analysis: The proposed Historic Walker lake parking regulations would:
1.Remove minimum parking requirements for any uses occupying an existing building.
If approved, Historic Walker Lake would be the first area in the city to have no minimum
parking requirements for existing buildings. This regulation would allow uses to occupy an
existing building without having to meet a minimum requirement for number of parking
spaces. The use would still have to meet all other relevant code requirements including
zoning, building and health codes.
The ability to remove the minimum parking requirements is unique to the Historic Walker
Lake area because of the availability of on-street parking and municipal parking lots located
within Historic Walker Lake.
2.Require a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces for new construction and
building expansions.
a.A new table would establish minimum parking requirements for uses located in the
area. The availability of public parking in the area supports the minimum number of
required off-street parking to be less than the city would require for similar uses located
elsewhere in the city.
b.The new table would also establish the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for
certain uses. This provision reduces the potential size of parking lots, encouraging
businesses to, in part, rely on the available public parking and promote alternate modes
of transportation.
3.Require properties to maintain the number of existing parking spaces. The number of
parking spaces that exist when this ordinance is adopted cannot be reduced. The reduction
in required parking is made possible in this area because of the availability of public and
private parking spaces. Therefore, the ordinance prohibits the reduction of existing on-site
parking spaces. The spaces can be relocated or replaced in a permanent manner that meets
code, such as permanent easement over spaces on another property, but the number of
spaces cannot be reduced.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
The proposed ordinance also includes regulations that apply to all properties in the city,
including the Historic Walker Lake area. The intent is to ensure parking lots are being utilized
for customer and employee parking as required by code. The following new provisions help to
enforce parking lots to be used in a safe manner and as intended by the parking section of the
zoning ordinance.
1.Prohibit using drive aisles and driveways for any purpose that prevents vehicle access to
parking spaces or inhibits emergency service response.
2.Require parking spaces to open directly to an aisle or driveway so that the use of the spaces
will be unimpeded.
3.Require off-street parking spaces be marked with painted lines or similar markings.
Next steps: If the council approves the first reading, then a second reading will be scheduled for
December 16, 2019.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Ordinance No. ___-19
An ordinance regarding parking standards
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding
underscored text and deleting the strikethrough text. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-361. Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces.
***
(c) Required quantity.
(1)Parking Spaces.Parking space requirements are established in Table 36-361(a) and (b).
For uses not listed, the off-street parking requirements shall be established by the Zoning
Administrator based upon the characteristics and functional similarities between uses
including, but not limited to: the size of building, type of use, number of employees,
expected volume and turnover of customer traffic, and expected frequency and number
of delivery or service vehicles. For structures containing multiple uses, each shall be
calculated separately. The requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City
Council as part of an application for a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit
Development based on verifiable information pertaining to parking.
(21)Required parking spaces must be located on the same lot as the principal use, unless
shared parking or off-site parking is approved for the use.
(32)The number provided for required parking spaces shall be the minimum
requirement, except where otherwise noted. Parking space requirements are as
follows:
(3)Historic Walker Lake District. The boundary of the Historic Walker Lake district is
illustrated in Figure A. The parking minimum and maximum requirements in Table
36-361(b) are applicable to the Historic Walker Lake District instead of those listed in
Table 36-361(a) in the following manner:
a.All new structures or the expansion of an existing structure located in the Historic
Walker Lake District shall be subject to the minimum and maximum parking
requirements specified in Table 36-361(b).
b.Existing structures are not subject to the minimum and maximum parking
requirements specified in Table 36-361(a) or Table 36-361(b). However, the
number of parking spaces that exist on the property cannot be reduced unless the
parking spaces are relocated to another property in accordance with the shared
parking requirements located within this section.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Figure A
Table 36-361 (b)
Current Land Use Category Proposed Required Off-Street
Minimum
Proposed Required Off-
Street Maximum
Residential
Multifamily 1 space/dwelling unit 2 spaces/dwelling unit
Elderly Housing 1 space/dwelling unit 2 spaces/dwelling unit
Human Care Uses
Adult day care 1 space/employee on largest shift OR
1 space/500 sq. ft. of GFA, which ever
is largest
1 space/employee on largest
shift OR 1 space/200 sq. ft. of
GFA, which ever is largest
Group day care, nursery
school
1 space/employee on largest shift OR
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA, which
ever is largest
1 space/employee on largest
shift OR 1 space per 200 sq.
ft. of GFA, which ever is
largest
Group homes 1 space/4 beds 1 space per 2 beds
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Medical or dental office 1 space/500 sq. ft. FA in excess of
4,000 sq. ft. (min. 4 spaces)
1 space/200 sq. ft. FA
Nursing home 1 space/employee on largest shift +1
space/6 beds
1 space/employee on largest
shift plus 1 space/ 3 beds
Institutional Uses
Community center Parking requirement based on uses
within the building.
Parking requirement based
on uses within the building
Libraries, museums, art 1 space/450 sq. ft. floor area in
principal structure.
1 space/ each 300 sq. ft. floor
area in principal structure.
High school and post-
secondary schools
1 space/classroom + 1 space per 5
students of legal driving age based on
the maximum number of students
attending classes at any one time
2 spaces/ classroom + 1
space per 3 students of legal
driving age based on the
maximum number of
students attending classes at
any one (1) time
Commercial Uses
Bank 1 space/250 sq. ft. floor area 1 space/200 sq. ft. floor area
Catering 1 space/500 sq. ft. floor area. 1space/500 sq. ft. floor area.
Coffee Shop 1 space/200 sq. ft. floor area. 1 space/100 sq. ft. floor area.
Food Service or Bakeries 1 space/300 sq. ft. floor area. 1 space /150 sq. ft. floor area
Hotel 1 space/3 guest rooms + parking
equal to 10% of the capacity of
persons for an affiliated use on site
(i.e., dining or meeting rooms)
1 space/guest room +
parking equal to 30% of the
capacity of persons for an
affiliated use on site (i.e.,
dining or meeting rooms)
Offices or medical and
dental labs
1 space/500 sq. ft. FA in excess of
4,000 sq. ft.
1 space/250 sq. ft. FA
Bowling alley 1 space/250 sq. ft. FA 1 space/100 sq. ft. FA
Pool hall or video arcade 1 space/250 sq. ft. FA 1 space/100 sq. ft. FA
Sport/health club, studio,
pool
1 space/500 sq. ft. FA in excess of
4,000 sq. ft. (minimum of 4 spaces)
1 space/ 200 sq. ft. FA
Theatre, auditorium,
assembly halls
1 space/4 attendees 1.5 spaces/4 attendees
Restaurants - fast casual 1 space/300 sq. ft. FA 1 space/75 sq. ft. of FA
Restaurants - standard sit
down
1 space/300 sq. ft. FA 1 space/75 sq. ft. of FA
Brewery/Food Hall 1 space/150 sq. ft. FA 1 space/75 sq. ft. FA
Retail store, grocery, and
service establishment
where > 25% gross floor
area is customer area
1 space/400 sq. ft. floor area. 1 space/400 sq. ft. FA
Retail where < 25% gross
floor area is customer area
1 space/250 sq. ft. floor area. 1 space/150 sq. ft. FA
Studios 1 space per 400 sq. ft. FA 1 sapce per 200 sq. ft. FA
Industrial Uses
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
Manufacturing, fabrication,
or processing
1 space/ employee on largest shift or
1 space/1,200 sq. ft. FA whichever is
greater +1 space/vehicle normally
stored or parked on the site
1 space/500 sq. ft. FA +1
space/ vehicle normally
stored or parked on the site
Showrooms 1 space/500 sq. ft. 1 space/200 sq. ft.
Warehouse 1 space/2 employees on largest shift
or 1 space/ 1,500 sq. ft. FA whichever
is greater
1 space/500 sq. ft. FA
***
(h) Parking Area Use. Required parking spaces and the driveways providing access to them shall
not be utilized for the following:
***
(5) Aisles and driveways shall not be used for any purpose that would for any period of time
prevent vehicle access to parking spaces or inhibit circulation or emergency service
response.
***
(k) Design Requirements
***
PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS
Table 36-361 (bc)
* One-way aisles only.
** When parking is provided within a parking ramp, the total bay width may be reduced to 58
feet.
Stall Angle
(degrees)
Curb Length
(feet)
Vehicle Projection
(feet)
Aisle Width
(feet)
Total Width
(feet)
45 Standard
Compact
12.0
11.5
18.5
17.0
13.0*
50.0
60 Standard
Compact
10.0
9.5
20.0
18.0
15.0*
55.0
75 Standard
Compact
9.0
8.5
20.5
17.5
18.0*
59.0
90*** Standard
Compact
8.5
8.0
18.0
16.0
24.0
60.0**
Parallel Standard
Compact
23.0
21.0
8.5
8.0
22.0
38.0
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance
*** In a C-1 district the minimum aisle width may be reduced to 22.0 feet and a minimum total
width of 58.0 feet, with the condition that aisles less than 24.0 feet wide shall provide a minimum
curb length of 9.0 feet.
***
(12) Each parking space shall open directly to an aisle or driveway. Tandem parking spaces,
however, may be established for:
a. Single-family and two-family residences.
b. Commercial and multiple family residential uses if approved with a parking
management plan and as part of the site plan of a conditional use permit or
planned unit development.
(l) Maintenance. All off-street parking areas shall be maintained in good repair.
(1) All parking areas containing four (4) or more parking spaces or containing angled
parking shall have the parking spaces clearly marked on the pavement, using minimum
four-inch wide painted lines or other marking devices approved by the city engineer.
Such markings shall conform to the approved parking plan and shall be maintained in
a clearly legible condition. No parking facilities shall be marked in a manner that
reduces the number of parking stalls to less than the number required by this zoning
ordinance.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 16, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First Reading December 2, 2019
Second Reading December 16, 2019
Date of Publication December 26, 2019
Date Ordinance takes effect January 10, 2020
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Action agenda item: 8d
Executive summary
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution certifying the environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting the
record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the Parkway
Residences redevelopment project. (Requires 4 affirmative votes.)
Policy consideration: Does the findings of fact and record of decision for the EAW satisfy the
requirements for making a negative declaration regarding the need for an environmental
impact statement (EIS)?
Summary: Staff requests adoption of findings regarding the EAW for the proposed
Parkway Residences redevelopment, located along West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue
South. The city council approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for
public review and comment on October 7, 2019.
The EAW examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Projects determined to have the potential for significant negative environmental effects must
do further environmental review, in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The city received comments from 4 agencies including the Metropolitan Council, the
Department of Administration – State Archaeologist, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The comments and
responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of decision document
(Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual commenters
following the city council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules.
Review of the EAW is complete. City staff find that the proposed Parkway
Residences redevelopment does not have the potential for significant negative
environmental effects and does not warrant an EIS.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution, findings of fact and record of decision (Exhibit
A to Resolution) and Parkway Residences St. Louis Park EAW
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Discussion
Background: The city council received a written report on September 23, 2019 regarding the
proposed Parkway Residences redevelopment and the need for an EAW. City council received a
staff report and approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for public review
and comment on October 7, 2019.
The EAW analyzed the impacts of the Parkway Residences project, which is a collection of 15
properties consisting of single-family homes and an assortment of smaller apartment buildings
along both sides of West 31st Street between Inglewood Avenue South and Glenhurst Avenue
South. The development properties are not all contiguous thus the project will be built amongst
other existing buildings. The project will remove twelve of the existing buildings and will
reinvest in the restoration of three existing apartment buildings. The development consists of
four new multi-family buildings creating 224 new units plus 24 units from the restored
apartment buildings for a total of 248 residential units. The development plan segments the
project into four campuses to be built in phases: west campus, north campus, southwest
campus and southeast campus plus the three existing apartment buildings to remain.
The EAW examines the potential for environmental impacts of the proposed project including:
a detailed project description, review of required permits, analysis of land use and zoning,
overview of geology, soils, topography, water resources, contamination and hazardous
materials, ecological resources, historic properties, visual effects, air emissions, noise and
transportation.
The city received comments from 4 agencies. The Office of the State Archaeologist
recommends a Phase 1a literature review and archaeological assessment for the site. The site is
situated near the site of the former Minneapolis Quarantine Hospital and its associated
cemetery, and some human remains were found in the area during the construction of Highway
7. The city has requested the developer engage a qualified archaeologist to conduct the
literature review and archaeological assessment. Outreach with the Office of the State
Archaeologist will occur if there are any questions.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources comments pertain to permits for any
necessary dewatering of the site.
The Metropolitan Council comments pertain to permits for sanitary sewer connections,
transportation analysis zones (TAZ), land use, waste water, and water resources. They request
one correction to a stormwater reference requirement.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated that they have no comments at this time.
The comments and responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of
decision document (Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual
commenters following the city council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules.
Present considerations: Staff recommends adoption of findings regarding the Parkway
Residences St. Louis Park EAW, record of decision, and a negative declaration regarding the
need for an EIS.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
The new material that has not been available for city council review previously is contained in
the findings of fact and record of decision document. It includes all the EAW comments we
received and the responses to those comments.
None of the regulatory agency comments indicated the need for an EIS.
Next steps: If the attached resolution is approved, staff will distribute the findings per
Minnesota Rules to the EQB distribution list, surrounding jurisdictions and individual
commenters.
Sela Investments has submitted applications for a comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide
portions of the site from medium-density residential to high-density residential, preliminary
and final plat approval, an alley vacation and a rezoning to a planned unit development. The
dwelling unit count included as part of the application is slightly lower than was what included
in the EAW.
The planning commission will hold a public hearing for the development on December 18, 2019,
and city council will likely review the applications in January 2020.
The developer also intends to request tax increment financing to defray a portion of
extraordinary costs associated with the project that would prevent the project from being
financially feasible. The developer and staff will update the economic development authority
on any tax increment financing requests prior to city council consideration of formal
applications.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Resolution No. 19-____
Approving record of decision and the negative declaration of need for an
environmental impact statement for the Parkway Residences redevelopment
West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue South
Whereas, Sela Investments (“Proposer”) proposes to redevelop 12 parcels in St. Louis
Park to create 224 new residential units and rehabilitate 24 apartment units for a total of 248
residential units to create Parkway Residences; and
Whereas, the Proposer requests an amendment to the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to
re-guide a portion of the site from medium density residential to high density residential; and
Whereas, the project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment
worksheet (“EAW”) by having a total of more than 150 attached units in a development that
also requires a change to the comprehensive plan per MN Rules 4410.4300, subpart 19 C.
Residential Development; and
Whereas, the project when combined with Parkway 25, falls within the mandatory EAW
per MN Rules 4410.4300, subpart 1, 3-year look-back requirement; and
Whereas, the EAW was prepared by Loucks Inc., on behalf of the Proposer, who
submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City of St. Louis Park consistent with
Minn. Rules Part 4410.1400; and
Whereas, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minn. Rules 4410.1300; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on
the EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on October 21,
2019, in accordance with applicable State laws, rules, and regulations; and
Whereas, the EAW comment period lasted from October 21, 2019 to November 20, 2019
and four (4) regulatory agencies submitted written comments during the comment period; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the comments received from the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Office of the State
Archeologist, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and
Whereas, city staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent
with the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best
of their knowledge, and recommends the city council approve the findings of fact and record of
decision dated December 2019 and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”)
is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Whereas, the city council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no
EIS is required with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”).
Now therefore be it resolved that the city council does hereby:
1. Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision on the Parkway
Residences environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A and hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are contained
therein; and
2. Find and determine that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no
environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
EXHIBIT A
PARKWAY RESIDENCES, ST. LOUIS PARK
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
City of St. Louis Park
December 2019
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
1. Administrative Background
At Parkway Residences, Sela Investments, Ltd. LLC, proposes to develop new multi-family
buildings and restore three existing apartment buildings in the vicinity of West 31st Street near
Glenhurst Avenue South. The project will consist of four new multi-family buildings creating 224
new units plus the restoration of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units for a
total of 248 residential units. The project removes twelve existing buildings, including single-
family homes and apartments.
The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subpart 19 C.
Residential Development and 4410.4300, subpart 1, 3- year look-back.
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for
review and commend to the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in
the EQB monitor on October 21, 2019. A notice was also published in the Sun Sailor newspaper.
This notice included a description of the project, information on where copies of the EAW were
available, and invited the public to provide comments.
The EAW was made available electronically on the City of St. Louis Park’s website at
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community-
development/development-projects/parkway-residences and in hard copy at the following
locations:
• St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
• St. Louis Park Library, 3240 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
The EAW comment period extended from October 21 to November 20, 2019. Written
comments were received from four agencies. No written comments were received from the
public. All comments received were considered in determining the potential for significant
environmental impacts.
Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed
project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to
comments, and other supporting documents, the City of St. Louis Park makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
2. Findings of Fact
2.1 Project Description
Sela Investments, Ltd. LLC, proposes to develop new multi-family buildings and restore three
existing apartment buildings in the vicinity of West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue South.
The project will consist of four new multi-family buildings creating 224 new units plus the
restoration of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units for a total of 248
residential units.
The Parkway Residences project is a collection of 15 properties consisting of single-family
homes and an assortment of smaller apartment buildings along both sides of West 31st Street
between Inglewood Avenue South and Glenhurst Avenue South. The development properties
are not all contiguous, thus the project will be built amongst other, existing buildings. The
project will remove twelve of the existing buildings and will reinvest in the restoration of three
apartment buildings. The development plan segments the project into the following four
campuses to be built in phases:
• The west campus includes an existing strip center at the southeast corner of Inglewood
Avenue South and County Road 25 that will be replaced with an 11-story apartment
building. The apartment will consist of eight-floors of residential units (84 units) with
parking and lobby space in the first two floors and the 11th floor dedicated to amenity
space. There is one-level of underground parking.
• The north campus is toward the center of the site and includes six existing residential
buildings north of West 31st Street. The homes will be replaced with a 4-story, 95-unit
apartment building with two-levels of underground parking. This apartment building is
expected to be the first phase of the project.
• The southwest campus is at the corner of Inglewood Avenue South and West 31st
Street. It includes the removal of three existing single-family homes for the construction
of a 4-story, 39-unit apartment building with one level of underground parking. The
southwest campus is proposed to be a later phase of the project.
• The southeast campus consists of two single-family homes that will be developed as a 6-
unit townhome. The townhome will be developed with affordable units as part of the
city’s inclusionary housing policy requirement to provide replacement housing for the
naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) existing in the project area.
• The existing housing includes the three apartment buildings south of West 31st Street
that will remain and be renovated. The apartments include a total of 24 units, of which
22 are considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), and are proposed to
remain as affordable housing units.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
2.2 Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was Published
There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was published.
2.3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW
During the comment period, the City of St. Louis Park received no written comments from the
public and written comments from the following four agencies:
• Minnesota Department of Administration –State Archaeologist
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
• Metropolitan Council
Consistent with state environmental rules, responses have been prepared below for all
substantive comments received during the comment period. Original comments in their
entirety are included in Appendix A.
1) Minnesota Department of Administration – State Archaeologist, November 1, 2019
Comment: “A review of our files indicates that the project area is situated at or adjacent
to the site of the former Minneapolis Quarantine Hospital and its associated cemetery.
According to a local newspaper article published on November 7, 1988 (Minnesota
Suburban Newspapers V.5 No. 32), human remains likely associated with the
Minneapolis Quarantine Hospital cemetery were recovered during construction
activities at the Diamond Hill Center, and it was reported that remains were recovered
in the area during the construction of Highway 7…Although no archaeological site is
current recorded in the project, given the location of the former hospital our office
recommends a qualified archaeologist conduct a Phase 1a literature review and
archaeological assessment, including historical archaeology. The literature search and
archaeological assessment should include recommendations concerning the necessity of
further archaeological field work for this project.”
Response: The city has requested the developer engage a qualified archaeologist
to conduct the literature review and archaeological assessment. Outreach with
the Office of the State Archaeologist will occur if there are any questions.
2) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, November 18, 2019
Comment: “As a reminder, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if there would
be dewatering of ground, stream, lake, or pond water in volumes that exceed 10,000
gallons per day, or one million gallons per year. This applies to both permanent and
temporary dewatering.”
Response: The city acknowledges the responsibility of the city and developer
regarding required permits. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit is identified as
one of the permits that must be obtained if determined it is needed.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Comment: DNR information indicates that the project site is located within the City of
Edina drinking water supply management area. Potential pollutants of ground water
should be handled with care to protect the City of Saint Louis Park’s water supply (page
10).
Response: The city and developer acknowledge the site’s location relative to the
City of Edina’s drinking water supply management area. Implementation of best
management practices pertaining to stormwater management, erosion control,
and hazardous materials is intended to protect the area.
3) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), November 19, 2019
Comment: “Minnesota Pollution Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the EAW and has no
comments at this time…Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by
the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future
permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer
to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions.”
Response: The city acknowledges the responsibility of the city and developer
regarding required permits.
4) Metropolitan Council, November 20, 2019
Comment: “The Council’s Engineering Service Engineering program staff will need to
review, comment, and issue a non-objection decision relative to the issuance of the
construction permit by the MPCA before connection can be made to the City’s
wastewater disposal system.”
Response: The city acknowledges the need to coordinate with the Metropolitan
Council regarding the proposed local sanitary sewer for the site. The need for
plan submittal has been added to Section 2.4.3 below and Table 8.1 in the EAW.
Comment: “Council staff suggest the City consider alternative courses of action with
respect to reguiding…”
Response: The city has considered the suggested alternative approach to land
use and determined that the plan for reguiding to high density residential is the
most appropriate.
Comment: “The EAW describes a proposed project that may have an impact on multiple
Metropolitan Council Interceptors in multiple locations…To assess the potential impacts
to our interceptor system; prior to initiating this project, preliminary plans should be
sent…”
Response: The city acknowledges the need to coordinate with the Metropolitan
Council regarding the wastewater system. The need for plan submittal has been
added to Section 2.4.3 below and Table 8.1 in the EAW.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Comment: For item 11.b.ii - “The EAW should be corrected by referring to the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service Atlas 14
precipitation frequency estimates. These superseded the 1961 TP-40 estimates in
2013.”
Response: The EAW has been amended in Item 11.b.ii to reference to the
National Weather Service Atlas 14.
2.4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and the additional
information considered in this document of findings of fact and conclusions are adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects based on
consideration of the four criteria identified in Minnesota Rules, part 4410, subpart 7.
2.4.1 Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts
The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW
described the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to
result from the proposed project. Based on the EAW analysis and mitigation commitments, the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial impacts. Below is a summary of the
findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project are as follows:
• Land Use – The project will be compatible with nearby land uses and land uses planned
in anticipation of the opening of the Southwest Light Rail Transit. A portion of the
project is already guided for transit-oriented development (TOD). The remaining portion
would need to be re-guided from medium-density to high-density residential. This
change would be supportive of the designated TOD area and nearby station area
development objectives.
• Geology – No susceptible features were identified through the EAW.
• Soils and Topography – Soil borings indicate the site is suitable for development. Gentle
slopes will result in relatively low erosion potential during construction.
• Water Resources – The project area does not include any surface waters and no
wetlands are indicated in mapping. The proposed project activities and planned land
uses are believed to pose a low threat to bedrock aquifers that supply the city’s drinking
water wells.
• Wastewater - The city’s and regional wastewater system have the capacity to accept
and treat the proposed wastewater from the project.
• Water - The city’s water system can adequately serve the project.
• Stormwater management - Stormwater management will be designed to meet the city
and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. Stormwater discharges from
the project will be cleaner than current water discharges and rates will be at or below
existing discharge rates.
• Wildlife and habitat - The site contains no fish or wildlife resources or habitats, nor any
threatened or endangered species. It is not anticipated that rare features will be
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 12
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
impacted. Greenspace, trees, and assorted shrubs and plants will be added to the
project to improve the habitat for urban wildlife.
• Historic resources - There are no historic resources known on site. However, in the
nearby area, a historic site and cemetery have been noted. The city and developer will
work with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a literature review and archeological
assessment.
• Visual – The project will complement existing uses in the area.
• Air – Emissions will be typical of residential development.
• Noise – Noise levels will be typical of residential development.
• Transportation – The traffic and parking study concluded that there is expected to be
minimal impact from the proposed project on the local and regional transportation
system. Additional sidewalk connections will improve non-motorized transportation.
• Eruv – The site is noted to be within an Eruv, a boundary used by Orthodox Jews to
expand the area where observants can carry objects on the Sabbath. The city and
developer will coordinate with the Jewish community to discuss if any protocols are
necessary during the construction of the project.
2.4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or
person undertakes such other actions. No cumulative potential effects are anticipated for this
project. Overall, the project fits within the existing neighborhood. Given that the site is already
developed, and there are no wetlands, lakes, habitat, or wildlife, impacts are limited. The
project can be served by existing utilities and transportation infrastructure.
2.4.3 Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by the
Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority
The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination
with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process.
Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project
construction are shown below:
Unit of Government Type of application Status
Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District
Stormwater management permit
Erosion Control permit
Application not submitted
Under a Memo of Understanding
giving the city permitting authority
City of St. Louis Park Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Rezoning to PUD
Preliminary and Final PUD
CUP for import/export of soils
over 400 cubic yards
Demolition permits
Public right-of-way permit
Sewer and Water permit
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 13
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
Building permits (including
building, electrical, mechanical,
plumbing)
Sign permits
Erosion Control permit (MOU
with watershed)
TIF, Tax Increment Financing
Alley Vacation, only if alternative
access to the lift station is
provided
Dewatering Permit
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application submitted Nov 4, 2019
Application not submitted
MPCA Notification of intent to perform
a demolition
Construction site stormwater
permit
Sewer connection permit
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Metropolitan Council Plans for on-site local sanitary
sewer submitted to
Environmental Service
Engineering Staff
Project plans (methods and
means of providing wastewater
services) submitted to Interceptor
Engineering
Plans not submitted
Plans not submitted
MDH Water extension permit
Asbestos Removal
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
DNR Water appropriation permit Obtain if needed
MnDOT Driveway access permits and
utility permits
Drainage permit
Permit for use of or work on
Highway 7
Obtain if needed
Obtain if needed
Obtain if needed
2.4.4 Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a
Result of Other Environmental Studies
The City of St. Louis Park has previous multi-use development experience, and similar projects
have been designed and constructed throughout the county. Design and construction staff are
familiar with the project area. No problems are anticipated that city staff has not encountered
or successfully solved previously in similar projects in or near the project area. The city finds
that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
environmental review and experience on similar projects.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Page 14
Title: Parkway Residences EAW
3. Conclusions
1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met.
2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated
information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed
during the final design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are
expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigation
measures are incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinate with
state and federal agencies during the permit process.
4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410,1700, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. An environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project.
For the City of St. Louis Park
_____________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Jake Spano, mayor Thomas K. Harmening, city manager
page 1
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1.Project title: Parkway Residences
2.Proposer: Sela Investments, Ltd, LLC 3.RGU
Contact person: Michael Margulies Contact person: Jennifer Monson
Title: Owner Representative Title: Planner
Address: 2007 W. Franklin Address: 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
City, State, ZIP: Minneapolis, MN 55405 City, State, ZIP: St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone: 612-205-0521 Phone: 952-928-2841
Fax: NA Fax: 952-924-2662
Email: michaelmargulies7@gmail.com Email: jmonson@stlouispark.org
4.Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
EIS Scoping Citizen Petition
X Mandatory EAW RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
Rules 4410.4300, subpart 19 C. Residential Development & 4410.4300, subpart 1, 3-year look-back.
5.Project Location:
County: Hennepin
City/Township: St. Louis Park
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): N ½ NE ¼ Sect 6 T.28, R.24
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Minnehaha Creek
GPS Coordinates: Latitude: 44°56'48.51"N, Longitude: 93°19'52.49"W
Tax Parcel Number: 0602824110004, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 57
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 15
page 2
Figures:
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – USGS Topography Map
Figure 3a – Pre-Construction Site Plan
Figure 3b – Post Construction Site Plan
Figure 3c – Parkway Residences Site Data
Figure 4 – St. Louis Park – Existing Land Use Plan
Figure 5 – St. Louis Park – Future Land Use Plan
Figure 6 – MPCA Special & Impaired Waters Map
Figure 7a – MPCA Well Receptors Investigation Report
Figure 7b – Well Physical Setting Source Map
Figure 7c – Well Physical Setting Source Summary
Figure 8 – St. Louis Park – Regional Sanitary Sewer System Map
Figure 9a – AET Letter for Closure
Figure 9b – Site Management Decision
Figure 9c – AET Map for Subsurface Assessment
Figure 10 – DNR Letter
Figure 11 – SHPO Letter
Appendix A – Site Map with Photos
Appendix B – Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
County map showing the general location of the project; (Figure 1)
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); (Figure 2) and
• Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-
construction site plan. (Figures 3a & 3b)
Figures 1, 2, 3a & 3b
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
The Parkway Residences development, located along West 31st Street near Glenhurst Ave, will consist of
four new multi-family buildings creating 224 new units plus the restoration of three existing apartment
buildings that contain 24 units for a total of 248 residential units. The project removes twelve existing
buildings including single-family homes and apartments.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing
facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause
physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to
existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling
of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 16
page 3
The Parkway Residences project is a collection of 15 properties consisting of single-family homes and an
assortment of smaller apartment buildings along both sides of West 31st Street between Inglewood
Avenue S. and Glenhurst Avenue. The development properties are not all contiguous thus the project will
be built amongst other existing buildings. The project will remove twelve of the existing buildings and
will reinvest in the restoration of three apartment buildings. The development consists of four new multi -
family buildings creating 224 new units plus 24 units from the restored apartment buildings for a total of
248 residential units. The development plan segments the project into four campuses to be built in phases:
west campus, north campus, southwest campus and southeast campus plus the three existing apartment
buildings to remain.
The west campus includes an existing strip center at the SE corner of Inglewood Avenue S. and County
Road 25 that will be replaced with an 11-story apartment building. The apartment will consist of eight-
floors of residential units (84 units) with parking and lobby space in the first two floors and the 11th floor
dedicated to amenity space. There is one-level of underground parking.
The north campus is toward the center of the site and includes six existing residential buildings north of
West 31st Street. The homes will be replaced with a 4-story, 95-unit apartment building with two-levels of
underground parking. A city lift station (Glenhurst lift station) is located on the northeast corner of parcel
4000 West 31st Street. A parking area will be provided adjacent to the existing lift station building. This
space will be located on the north side of the building and will allow for maintenance. If the entire alley is
vacated, an easement will need to be created for this area. This apartment building is expected to be the
first phase of the project.
The southwest campus is at the corner of Inglewood Avenue S. and West 31st Street. It includes the
removal of three existing single-family homes for the construction of a 4-story, 39-unit apartment
building with one level of underground parking. The southwest campus is proposed to be a later phase of
the project.
The southeast campus consists of two single-family homes that will be developed as a 6-unit townhome.
The townhome will be developed with affordable units as part of the city’s inclusionary housing policy
requirement to provide replacement housing for the naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH)
existing in the project area.
The existing housing includes the three apartment buildings south of West 31st Street that will remain and
be renovated. The apartments include a total of 24 units which 22 are dedicated as naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH) and will remain as NOAH designated housing units.
The Parkway Residences development is proposed to start construction in the Spring of 2020 with the 4-
story, 95-unit apartment building plus the renovations of the three existing apartment buildings.
Following phases will be based on market demand and entitlements. It is expected that market demand
will be supported by the project being within ½ mile of both the Beltline Station and the West Lake
Station on the Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) Corridor and the success of Parkway 25. There are no
changes to the alignments of the existing utilities or roadways except for the narrowing of West 31st Street
in an effort to slow traffic, improve stormwater and add greenspace.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 17
page 4
Parkway Residences follows Sela Investments, Parkway 25 project (4015 County Rd 25) that was
constructed in 2017. Parkway 25 is a 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 112 apartment units and
12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The combined projects include a total of 360
residential units and 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space. Parkway 25 was not reviewed as an
EAW. However, Parkway 25 in combination with the proposed Parkway Residences, crosses the
threshold of a Mandatory EAW by having a total of more than 150 attached units, including a change to
the comprehensive plan from medium density to high density. The two projects are within the Mandatory
EAW per MN Rules 4410.4300, subpart 19 C. Residential Development & 4410.4300, subpart 1, 3-year
look-back thus requiring the need for an EAW.
c. Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage 3.5 acres
Linear project length NA
Number and type of residential units 248 multi-family
Commercial building area (in square feet) NA
Industrial building area (in square feet) NA
Institutional building area (in square feet) NA
Other uses – specify (in square feet) existing lift station, 375 sq. ft
Structure height(s) Varied building heights for the proposed 2, 3, 4 and 11 story
buildings with heights ranging between 31 to 140 feet.
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit,
explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
Parkway Residences is a private development proposed to meet the market demands of apartment living
near the Southwest LRT Beltline Boulevard station and the surrounding amenities in St. Louis Park. The
project will include three existing apartment buildings that will contain 22 naturally occurring affordable
(NOAH) units plus 6 new affordable townhome units as defined by the City’s inclusionary housing
policy.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned
or likely to happen? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? X Yes No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
Parkway Residences follows Sela Investments’ Parkway 25 project (4015 County Rd 25) that was
constructed in 2017. Parkway 25 is a 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 112 apartment units and
12,000 sq. ft of ground floor commercial space. The combined projects include a total of 360 residential
units and 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space. Parkway 25 was not reviewed under an EAW.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 18
page 5
7.Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and
after development:
Before After Before After
Wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 2.0 Ac. 2.6
Deep water/streams 0 0 Impervious surface 1.5 Ac. 0.9
Wooded/forest 0 0 Stormwater Pond 0 0
Brush/Grassland 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0
Cropland 0 0
TOTAL 3.5 Ac. 3.5 Ac.
The primary reason for the increase of lawn/landscaping and decrease in impervious surface was created
by narrowing 36th Avenue in order to improve traffic controls and add greenspace.
8.Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing
permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial
assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these
final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Table 8.1 Required Permits
Unit of Government Type of application Status
Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District
Stormwater management permit
Erosion Control permit
Application not submitted
Under a Memo of Understanding
giving the city permitting authority
City of St. Louis Park Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Rezoning to PUD
Preliminary and Final PUD
CUP for import/export of soils
over 400 cubic yards
Demolition permits
Public right-of-way permit
Sewer and Water permit
Building permits (including
building, electrical, mechanical,
plumbing)
Sign permits
Erosion Control permit (MOU
with watershed)
TIF, Tax Increment Financing
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 19
page 6
Alley Vacation, only if
alternative access to the lift
station is provided
Dewatering Permit
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
MPCA Notification of intent to perform
a demolition
Construction site stormwater
permit (NPDES)
Sewer connection permit
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
Metropolitan Council Plans for on-site local sanitary
sewer submitted to
Environmental Service
Engineering Staff
Project plans (methods and
means of providing wastewater
services) submitted to Interceptor
Engineering
Plans not submitted
Plans not submitted
MDH Water extension permit
Asbestos Removal
Application not submitted
Application not submitted
DNR Water appropriation permit Obtain if needed
MnDOT Driveway access permits and
utility permits
Drainage permit
Permit for use of or work on
Highway 7
Obtain if needed
Obtain if needed
Obtain if needed
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested
in EAW Item No. 19
Cumulative potential effects are addressed under applicable EAW questions, not individually under
Question 19.
9.Land use:
a.Describe:
i.Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including
parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The properties included within the project consist of 15 single-family homes and small apartment
buildings all built between 1903 and 1967. The site includes one commercial strip center built in 1979.
The surrounding area immediate adjacent the project is a mixture of similar type uses that extend to larger
apartments, commercial and industrial uses beyond. In recent years the project area is seeing new
development of large apartment complexes, including Parkway 25 and the Shoreham, a 148-unit mixed
use development with 20,000 square feet of commercial, on the east side of Glenhurst Ave.
The site is bounded by Highway 7 to the north and the future Southwest LRT rail line plus the Cedar
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 20
page 7
Lake LRT Regional Trail bike/pedestrian trail to the south. Lake Bde Maka Ska and Lake Bde Maka Ska
Park are located one-half miles to the east and Bass Lake is one-quarter mile to the southwest. The
Minikahda golf course is generally 0.13 miles to the southeast. (Figure 4)
ii.Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available)
and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a
local, regional, state, or federal agency.
The City has recently completed and adopted their 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The project site is
guided TOD, Transit Oriented Development for the properties adjacent the south side of County Road 25
and RM-Medium Density Residential along both sides of West 31st Street. The TOD designation aims for
a mix of uses oriented toward the light rail transit stop with a focus on building forms that create a
pedestrian rich environment rather than a specific mix of uses. It is expected that residential uses will
make up approximately 75 to 85 percent of the uses. The density of the proposed individual phases is
between 68 to 146 units per acre with a total density of 70.85 units per acre. (Figure 5)
Parkway Residences will require the re-guiding from Medium Density to High Density to achieve the
necessary density to support the project and the nearby LRT stations. The success for the investments
made to construct the SWLRT and its stations is dependent on ridership and station area activity. TOD’s
are based on higher densities from developments that can provide a large mix of housing to serve a
variety of incomes and promote transit ridership. The Medium Density Residential designation only
allows net densities from 6 to 30 units per acre with housing types that are compatible in scale to single-
family detached, duplexes, townhomes, and small two-or three-story apartment buildings. High Density
Residential land uses are intended for compact urban residential areas with convenient access to major
transportation corridors, open spaces and commercial centers with densities between 30 and 75 units per
acre. As a TOD guided site, the site is best served as a High-Density Residential designation than a
Medium Density Residential designation to meet TOD and station area development objectives.
Being within the one-half mile station radius for the Beltline Station the site is subject to the City’s 2012
Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines. The Guidelines provide a long-term guide for shaping
future changes in the Station Area by identifying preferred land uses, building patterns, and
connectivity/access patterns for the future station area. Although the project will be at the eastern edge of
the one-half mile station area and outside of the 10-minute walkshed it will incorporate the pedestrian
friendly connectivity and densities that the plan highlights. Parkway Residences has incorporated the 10
Guiding Principles for the Beltline area as it captures the value of transit, creates a connected network of
greater public spaces and assures superior walking and biking accessibility, to name a few. The project is
not only close to two transit stations, Beltline and West Lake, it is also within a half mile to several lakes
and parks. Pedestrian accessibility to transit, parks, lakes, regional trails and shopping via walking,
biking, transit or automobiles connects Parkway Residences not only to the SWLRT but to the
surrounding area and the region.
The project site is within the City’s CSAH 25 South Wedge Character District as described in the Beltline
Area Framework and Design Guidelines. Its location directly adjacent to the future Beltline Station and its
existing highway character development make it an area with strong potential for attracting reinvestment
and redevelopment that better fits with high quality transit access. The future identity of this area should
be strongly linked to the Beltline Transit Station, evolving dramatically from its existing highway
character to future development that is urban and transit-oriented in character. The Design Guidelines
suggest allowing high density residential uses in the CSAH 25 South Wedge area east of Lynn Ave. S.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 21
page 8
“CSAH 25 South Wedge
a.Encourage predominately employment buildings, with support retail and service uses (where
appropriate and feasible) along CSAH 25.
b.Encourage commercial buildings at the intersection of CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard.
c.Allow high density residential buildings east of Lynn Street.”
iii.Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The northwest corner of the project site is zoned C-2 General Commercial. This area includes the existing
strip center at the SE corner of Inglewood Avenue S. and County Road 25. The remaining parcels are
zoned R-4 Multiple-Family Residence.
Parkway Residences is proposed to be re-zoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow
flexibility to facilitate a more cohesive and innovative site and building design contributing to the public
good.
There are no Overlay Districts.
b.Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item
9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
Parkway Residences is part of the continuing reinvestment in this area envisioned and planned for by the
City’s 2040 comprehensive plan update and the Beltline Area Framework and Design Guidelines in
anticipation of the 2023 opening of the Southwest LRT. The project compliments the Parkway 25
development, recently completed by Sela Investment, plus the Shoreham, a five-story 148-unit apartment
building, and the other redevelopment projects occurring in the surrounding area. Providing the
combination of new buildings and the renovation of existing buildings this project provides a good
transition between existing and future land uses.
Because the site is currently fully developed with no existing natural features there are no environmental
impacts with the proposed project.
c.Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
Parkway Residences will include innovative greenspace and stormwater design to mitigate environmental
effects. The development will add greenspace and narrow West 31st Street to minimize hard surface.
Stormwater treatment and rate control will be incorporated per city and watershed requirements.
10.Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a.Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features
for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 22
page 9
The depth of bedrock at the project site area ranges from 50 feet to 125 feet, based on the Hennepin
County Geologic Atlas and examination of nearby well records in the Minnesota Well Index. The first
bedrock unit encountered is the Platteville Limestone, which is present with approximately 5 to 20 feet in
thickness at or near the project site. The bedrock is overlain by a mixture of unconsolidated drift deposits
containing sand, gravel, and clay.
While the uppermost bedrock is carbonite in nature, the likelihood for karst is fairly low. Karst conditions
are more prevalent in areas where the depth to the carbonate bedrock is less than 50 feet and where the
top of the water table fluctuates within the bedrock layer. Neither of these conditions are encountered at
the project site.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes,
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or
other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be
addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared by Terracon on May 28, 2019 and found that the
subject area (north campus) consisted of fill material to about 10 feet in depth where the borings then
encountered sand materials until reaching limestone. The borings did not encounter groundwater but the
site is subject to areas of potential perched water. The borings indicate that the site is suitable for the
proposed development. Excavation is anticipated to be 24 feet in depth for the underground parking and
that existing fill will be removed within the building foot print using shoring to protect nearby roadways
and utilities. If perched water is discovered, dewatering may be needed.
Water was observed at boring locations 4, 5, and 6 at elevations ranging from 869 to 873 feet while
drilling. They also stated that water contents of the sampled sand soils were relatively higher below
depths of about 23 to 28 feet in these borings, which might serve as indication of presence of
groundwater. Borings 2, 4, and 5 were terminated at depths of 50 feet. Boring 6 was terminated at a depth
of 55 feet. Borings 1 and 3 had medium dense to dense sands at depths of 73.5 and 68.5 feet, respectively.
Existing fill soils were observed in the area of the proposed building to depths ranging from about 4 to 10
feet.
The Web Soil Survey classifies the majority of the parcels project area as “urban land, Udorthents”
(classification code U6B). This classification is mostly comprised of cut and fill land with very gradual
slopes ranging from 0 to 6 percent slopes. These are well drained soils with typically little to no frequency
of flooding or ponding. A slight portion of the northern most project area is comprised of “urban land,
Udorthents – wet substratum” (classification code U1A). This classification is comprised of little to no
slopes with a range from 0 to 2 percent slopes. They are well drained soils with no flooding or ponding.
Gentle existing slopes within the project area will result in relatively low erosion potential during
demolition, construction and while site operational activities are occurring. Existing and newly installed
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 23
page 10
catch basins in the project site will be protected with appropriate erosion and sediment control devices
during construction to limit erosion and potential runoff to surface waters until permanent erosion control
measures are established.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the
potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased
risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water
resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology,
soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
11.Water resources:
a.Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i.Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,
wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value
water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current
MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR
Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
The project area does not include any surface waters and no wetlands are indicated on the National
Wetland Inventory mapping. There are several lakes surrounding the site that include; Bass Lake is one-
quarter mile to the southwest, Lake Bde Maka Ska is located one-half mile to the east and Cedar Lake is
located approximately one-half mile to the northeast, Lake of the Isles is located one mile to the northeast
from the project area. All the lakes are considered DNR Public Waters.
Twin Lake is located approximately three-quarters of a mile from the site area and is designated an
impaired water per MPCA’s Special and impaired waters search. It is listed in the Category of Shallow
Lake or Reservoir with an approximate surface area of 12.3 acres. Twin Lake’s identification number is
27-0656-00. (Figure 6)
ii.Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project
is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby
wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known
on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on December 21, 2018 for 4000-4108 West 31st
Street. The Phase 1 was conducted solely for the proposed 4-story apartment in the center of the project. It
did not include all the properties in the project site but did review the surrounding area. The Phase 1 states
that the estimated depth to groundwater is approximately 30-40 feet below the ground surface based on
Kanivetsky, Roman, University of Minnesota Geological Survey, Hennepin County Quaternary
Hydrogeology, County Atlas C-4, Plate 5, 1989. The report further notes that the Hydrogeologic gradient
is not known, but the groundwater in the area generally flows southeast. This will be toward Lake Bde
Maka Ska.
The project is not currently listed within a MDH wellhead protection area, however a past investigation
report attached to the Phase 1 report noted that one (1) well was listed by the Minnesota Department of
Health Well Index website that was within 500 feet of the site. It states that this well is likely not in
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 24
page 11
service anymore since it used to service a grain elevator located near the railroad tracks which is no
longer present. The well’s unique ID is 216066 and it is the called Burdick Grain Co. well with an
elevation of 891 feet. The Phase 1 included a Physical Setting Source Map identifying nearby wells.
(Figures 7a, 7b, & 7c)
The proposed project activities and planned land uses are believed to pose a low threat to bedrock
aquifers that supply the City’s drinking water wells. The depth to the aquifers is approximately 260 to 280
feet at the project site, with multiple bedrock layers and confining units between the land surface and the
bedrock aquifers.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify
any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added
water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of,
municipal wastewater infrastructure.
The site is within the City’s Meter Service Area M1312 which connects to the regional wastewater system
(Figure 8). St. Louis Park sanitary sewer system transports wastewater to three Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) interceptors which transports the sanitary sewage to the Metro treatment
facility in St. Paul. The City’s sanitary sewer management plan conforms to the regional plan and has the
capacity to accept and treat the proposed wastewater from Parkway Residences.
The sanitary waste generation for the project build-out is estimated to be 51,512 gallons per day based on
the Metropolitan Council Sewer Availability Charge (SAC). The above estimate is based on the following
calculations.
There are 224 new units = 224 (new units) – 34 existing units removed – 2 commercial SAC units
(existing commercial building) = 193 new units.
Building 1 (north campus) – 95 new units -29 units removed = 66 units. 66 x 274 gallons = 18,084 gal
Building 2 (southeast campus) – 6 new units-2 units removed = 4 units x 274 gal = 1,096 gal
Building 3 (southwest campus) – 39 units - 3 units removed = 36 units x 274 gal = 9,864 gal
Building 4 (west campus) – 84 units – 2 commercial SAC units = 82 units = 22,468 gal
193 x 274 gallons = total of 51,512 gallons.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for
such a system.
NA
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater
treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 25
page 12
limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater
from wastewater discharges.
NA
ii.Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential
BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion
control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations
during and after project construction.
The existing property generally consist of existing apartment buildings and single-family homes.
Stormwater runoff from the existing property generally travels northeast where it enters the City of St.
Louis Park storm sewer system. This storm sewer system ultimately discharges into Lake Bde Maka Ska.
In the proposed condition, stormwater will follow a similar pattern as the existing. Stormwater runoff in
the proposed condition will be collected and treated by pond or underground facilities to meet the
requirements of the City of St. Louis Park, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the MPCA
NPDES Permit.
Stormwater management will be provided on each of the subject parcels. The proposed stormwater
management system will consist of underground filtration/detention tanks to meet the requirements of the
City of St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Stormwater will be directed out to
the public right-of-way and will ultimately connect into the existing storm sewer system in the
intersection of Glenhurst Avenue and the Highway 7 Frontage Road. Stormwater discharges in the
proposed condition will be cleaner water than the existing condition and at rates that are at or below the
existing discharge rates.
Stormwater management on the project site is regulated by the city of St. Louis Park, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD), and the State of Minnesota. The City requires that the post-redevelopment
100-year stormwater runoff peak rate be no more than that of the pre-redevelopment 10-year runoff peak
rates. The MCWD permits no increase in stormwater rates over existing conditions for the 1-, 10- and
100-year storm events, using rainfall depths and Type II distribution from the National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service Atlas 14. Both the City and MCWD
require stormwater abstraction in the amount of 1.0-inch of runoff over the impervious surfaces. The City
requires no net increase over existing conditions for total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus
(TP). The MCWD requires that, in areas where it is infeasible to meet the MCWD volume control
standard that phosphorus control be provided in the amount equivalent to that which would be achieved
through the abstraction of 1.0-inch of rainfall from the site’s impervious surfaces. The NPDES
Stormwater Permit requires treatment of 1.0-inch of runoff from new impervious areas, if more than one
acre of new impervious area is created. The NPDES Stormwater Permit also requires temporary erosion
and sediment control measure be implemented.
Temporary runoff controls will include silt fence, biorolls, inlet protection, erosion control blanket, and
rock construction entrances. Permanent stormwater runoff controls will include hardscape, full site
vegetation, and proposed stormwater treatment BMP’s. These BMP’s could include above ground
infiltration/filtration basins, underground infiltration/filtration basins, ponds, or proprietary filter devices.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 26
page 13
The stormwater discharge plan will need to meet the city’s discharge rate control requirements that a 6-
inch discharge rate cannot exceed the existing 4.2-inch discharge rate. The project will complete the
MPCA’s screening assessment for contamination to justify any treatment of stormwater through
infiltration.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of,
municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water
appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for
appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental
effects from the water appropriation.
Parkway Residences will connect to the City’s water system which can adequately serve the project. The
City derives its water supply from a series of 10 active wells that draw on the Prairie Du Chein-Jordan
and Mount Simon-Hinkley aquifers. The total water production capacity of the City’s active and alternate
wells is 96 gpm (13.8 MGD). The firm capacity of the system, which assumes the largest well out of
service, is 8,400 gpm (12.1` MGD). The current firm well capacity exceeds the most recent 5-year
average maximum day demand of 9.3 MGD. No well abandonment is planned for the project. There are
no current active wells believed to be within the project site area.
Dewatering is not expected to be needed for the project but if deemed necessary a dewatering permit will
be obtained as regulated by the city, which includes permitting plans and groundwater testing. Water was
encountered in borings at depths near 870 feet. However, perched water can be anticipated within fill
layers and the contractor will be prepared to remove water that accumulates in excavations during
construction.
iv. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and
vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from
physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any
proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify
measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize,
or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required
compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in
the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.
There are no known wetlands on the project site.
2) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels,
county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation,
dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and
riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 27
page 14
physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best
Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize
turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss
how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water
body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
There are no surface water features within the project site nor any proposed alteration that will create a
physical effect or alteration to any surrounding water feature. The development will be subject to the
stormwater standards of the City and the watershed. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be
incorporated in to the development of the project as deemed appropriate by the City.
12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a.Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks,
and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-
project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and
operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing
contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency
Plan or Response Action Plan.
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on December 21, 2018 for 4000-4108 West 31st
Street. The Phase 1 was conducted solely for the proposed 4-story apartment in the center of the project. It
did not include all the properties in the project site but did review the surrounding area. The report states
that the Site was not listed in regulatory state or federal database. However, the Glenhurst Lift Station was
listed in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. The lift station is located on the
northeast corner of parcel 4000 West 31st Street. A 560-gallon diesel fuel underground storage tank was
used to fuel the lift station prior 2010 until the City switched to a natural gas-fired generator. In
preparation for the tank removal in 2009 diesel range organics contamination was encountered and the
release was reported to the MPCA, who assigned the leak ID No. LS0017785. The tank was removed in
October 2010, but contaminated soil was left in place due to proximity of the lift station building. Based
on the result of the investigations it was concluded that the soil, groundwater and soil vapor impacts were
limited to the vicinity around the tank basin.
Research on the MPCA’s site “What’s in my Neighborhood” resulting in the following findings on sites
near the project area. The Parkway 25 redevelopment site contained some activities which included a
voluntary investigation and cleanup program relating to brownfields. Two nearby users; Geno Healthcare
LLC and Veterinary Ophthalmology Practice, both have uses that generate by-products that the MPCA
considers to be hazardous waste. Geno Healthcare LLC produces approximately 220 pounds or less of
hazardous waste per year and less than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month. Veterinary
Ophthalmology Practice creates less than 100 pounds of hazardous waste per year and none of which is
classified as acute hazardous waste. The two users perform daily functions that maintain these small
quantities of waste while disposing of the materials per the MPCA guidelines.
On November 9, 2010 American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) submitted a letter to the City
recommending that the MPCA close their file for the Glenhurst leak based on their Limited Site
Investigation Report. The investigation report under Section 3: Site Management Decision states:
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 28
page 15
(Figures 9a, 9b, & 9c)
“The horizontal and vertical extent of the petroleum contamination has been determined. Soil and Ground
water contamination is present at the site, but is confined to the tank basin area. There is no indication that
receptors within 500 feet are impacted by soil contamination, groundwater contamination or petroleum
soil gas vapors. DRO is present in the groundwater, but only slightly elevated. Petroleum VOCs detected
in the groundwater are below MDH HRLs. Excavation of contaminated soil is not practical in this case
because of the proximity of the tank basin to the adjacent lift station structure, At the time of the
investigation and subsequent tank pull observations, free product was not observed at the site.”
In consultation with the MPCA Petroleum release reporting group we were informed that the LEAK site
file was closed in November of 2010.
The contaminated soil is well documented and will be monitored during the development of the site. The
City will prepare a Contingency Plan and/or Response Action Plan to be approved by the City and any
other overseeing regulatory agencies prior construction near the lift station.
b.Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
During the construction phase solid waste such as lumber, sheetrock and other typical debris will be
collected and disposed of to a demolition/construction landfill. The development will generate typical
commercial and household solid waste per day. The City encourages recycling which will reduce the
amount of solid waste. The waste will be disposed of by contracted waste removal operations that
provide refuse collection services for all of the future generators.
The Phase 1 report noted that based on the age of the buildings it is possible that some asbestos-
containing materials (ACM) and Lead-Based Paint (LBP) may exist based on the visual observation at the
site. No samples of suspect ACM or LBP were collected or analyzed as part of the observations but it was
recommended that an asbestos survey be conducted prior to renovations or demolition of buildings.
c.Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous
materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method
of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to
store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental
spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate
adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source
reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels (small quantities stored above ground) and specific
construction materials would be on site during construction and stored and handled in conformance with
state and federal regulations to prevent accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Builders and
contractors are responsible for proper management of hazardous materials utilized during construction.
The contractor would minimize and mitigate adverse effects from the generation and storage of hazardous
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 29
page 16
wastes by recycling wastes that can be recycled, and by developing a spill prevention plan for the project.
d.Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage,
and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Outside of the materials described above, the project is not anticipated to generate or require the storing,
handling or disposal of hazardous wastes during construction or operation of the project.
13.Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a.Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
The site contains no fish or wildlife resources or habitats except for maintained residential yards.
b.Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,
native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity
Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site.
Provide the license agreement number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB
20200023) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the
DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the
site and describe the results.
On August 26, 2019 we received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural
Heritage Review (ERDB 20200023) noting that based on their review they concluded that they do not believe
the proposed project will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features. (Figure 10 – DNR,
Natural Heritage Review Letter)
c.Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may
be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species
from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened
and endangered species.
No known threatened or endangered species will be affected by this project. Currently the site does not have
any significant wildlife or plant communities. However, any existing urban wildlife will benefit from the
project by the inclusion of added green space, trees and assorted shrubs and plants. The project will include
the addition of landscape areas with higher quality plant material with an emphasis on native plant material,
which should be beneficial to any wildlife. The project will specify the use of weed free topsoil to minimize
the spread of invasive plants species. Additionally, continued maintenance of the site will minimize future
invasive species establishment.
d.Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
Best management practices, including erosion and sedimentation control devices will be used during
construction activities to prevent sediment-laden stormwater runoff from the project site.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 30
page 17
14.Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or
in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and
operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects
to historic properties.
On August 6, 2019 we received a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, Project #2019-
2095) noting that based on their review they concluded that there are no properties listed in the National or
State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be
affected by this project. (Figure 11 – SHPO Letter)
15.Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related
visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual
effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
Lake Bde Maka Ska is within one-half mile east from the site. Although not currently visible from the
project area, residents in the upper-floors of the proposed apartment building may gain a scenic view of
the lake.
There are no anticipated visual effects from the project site as it will complement the existing uses
surrounding the area. Due to the multi-family uses within the development there will be lights needed for
parking lots and pedestrian trails that will extend into the evening hours. The lights will have shields to
minimize glare and spilling of lighting into the night sky and neighboring properties. Lights for the
development will be subject to city ordinances and the PUD Master Plan review process.
16.Air:
a.Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous
air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality
including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a
discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of
that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
Buildings will be heated with a combination of electric and gas power mechanical units. Gas will also be
used for the building hot water system. Emissions from the heating and cooling units would be typical of
similar type residential developments.
b.Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
Construction vehicles will create temporary exhaust emissions while grading the site. Construction
activities will be conducted during daytime regulated hours and all vehicles will be to state and federal
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 31
page 18
standards. The proposed project will generate an increase in carbon monoxide levels due to an increase in
passenger vehicle and truck trips. The project will not require an indirect source permit. No baseline air
quality monitoring or modeling is proposed and no measures to mitigate for the increase in vehicle related
emissions are being considered.
c.Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of
dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
Dust and odor will be restricted to development activities occurring on the site. Construction vehicles may
create dust if the construction conditions are dry. As this is a multi-phased project with multiple uses
development activities will be occurring sporadically through the full-build out of the project. During
times of construction activity dust control measures will be utilized per the city permits.
The sensitive receptors in the vicinity include single-family and multi-family residential housing, Lake
Bde Maka Ska, Minikahda Golf Club, Bass Lake Park and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
bike/pedestrian trail. All other uses in the surrounding area are commercial/office development or urban
developed land.
Development of the site will be subject to dust and odor control through the PUD master plan review
process in accordance to city ordinances.
17.Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including: 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3)
conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
Construction vehicles will generate temporary intensity increases to the existing noise levels.
Construction activities will be conducted during daytime regulated hours and all vehicles will be to state
and federal standards. The noise generated will be no different than previous development activities and
regulated by approved permits.
18.Transportation
a.Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing
and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated,
3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate
source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or
other alternative transportation modes.
A traffic and parking study was conducted by SRF dated September 6, 2019. Their review was based on
an earlier version of the site plan than the one included in the EAW. The difference between the two plans
is a difference of two units for the 11-story bldg. The traffic study notes an 86-unit building while the
EAW notes an 84-unit building. The two-unit difference does not impact the findings of the traffic study.
(Appendix B)
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 32
page 19
Per the traffic study the proposed development is broken in four (4) development sites/campuses.
•Site 1 (north campus) is currently occupied by three (3) single-family homes and three (3) 12-unit
apartment complexes, to be replaced by a 95-unit apartment building with 139 parking stalls.
•Site 2 (southeast campus) is currently occupied by two (2) single-family homes and would be
replaced by six (6) townhomes with 12 parking stalls
•Site 3 (west campus) is currently occupied by a veterinary clinic and would be replaced by an 11-
story, 84-unit apartment building with 146 parking stalls.
•Site 4 (southwest campus) is currently occupied by three (3) single-family homes and would be
replaced by a 39-unit apartment building with 34 parking stalls.
In total, the development includes 224 units and 331 parking stalls with all current land uses planned to be
replaced by the proposed development.
A trip generation was completed for the proposed development using the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
Tenth Edition. Note that a 10 percent modal reduction was applied to the proposed development trip
generation to account for available and planned transit options in the immediate study area (Metro Transit
Route 17 and future Green Line LRT). Accounting for the modal reductions, the proposed development is
expected to generate a total of approximately 69 a.m. peak hour, 82 p.m. peak hour, and 1,040 daily trips.
To determine the approximate net change in overall roadway system trips, trips from the existing land
uses were subtracted from the proposed development site trips. Taking into account the existing site trip
reductions, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of approximately 34 a.m. peak hour,
38 p.m. peak hour, and 636 daily net new system trips.
In addition to the transit options available, an extensive sidewalk and bike path network is available
within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The Cedar Lake LRT Trail provides
connections to both southwestern suburbs and Downtown Minneapolis. Additionally, this bicycle network
connects with the Midtown Greenway, which provides a bicycle connection to St. Paul. Graphics of these
options are available within the traffic and parking study attached. (Appendix B, Traffic Report)
b.Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional
transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total
daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the
format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access
Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance,
Although the expected peak hour trip generation of the proposed project is estimated to be 69 a.m. peak
hour, 82 p.m. peak hour, and 1,040 daily trips (prior to reductions of existing site trips), an intersection
capacity analysis was completed. Results of the 2025 build condition intersection capacity analysis
indicates that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better
during the a.m. and pm. peak hours.
Based on a year 2025 traffic impact analysis, there is expected to be minimal impact from the proposed
project on the local and regional transportation system. No mitigation to either traffic controls or roadway
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 33
page 20
geometry is warranted to accommodate the development based upon current traffic management
standards.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
The proposed site plan includes sidewalks along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road, Glenhurst Avenue, and
Inglewood Avenue. The sidewalks have appropriate connections to the development as well as to
proposed parking lots. These sidewalk connections can help accommodate multimodal users, which can
reduce vehicular impacts on area roadways. The sidewalk improvements will help provide connections
for residents and guests to utilize transit and the extensive city/regional trail system.
Shared parking between the four (4) development sites should be utilized to minimize impacts on
available on-street parking to meet City parking requirements and ITE parking demand estimates.
Additionally, travel demand management strategies can be implemented to reduce vehicular ownership to
meeting parking demands.
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects
are addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects
that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential
effects.
NA
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
NA
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
NA
20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental
effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the
environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate
these effects.
The project site is within an observed Eruv, a boundary used by Orthodox Jews to expand the area where
observants can carry objects on the Sabbath. An Eruv is an artificial boundary demarcated by string or
similar marking that encircles a neighborhood. The result is that every place within the radius of the string
is "home" allowing for a broader category of activities to occur. Within the project area all the land north
of West 31st Street is within the Eruv. As the developer of the Parkway 25 building, the developer is
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 34
page 21
aware of this observation and is familiar with developing within the Eruv. The City and developer will
coordinate with the Jewish community to discuss if any protocols are necessary during the construction of
the project.
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
•The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
•The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or
phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively.
•Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature ________________________________ Date __10/1019_________________________
Title ______________Planner_______________
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 35
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 36
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 37
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 38
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 39
Sela Group8/1/2019Unit NameV1V2V2-HV3V3-HV4V4-HA2A2HA3A3-HA4A4HA5A10HB2B2HB8THTotal UnitsUnit Type1B/1B1B/1B1B/1B1B/1B1B/1B1B/1B1B/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B1B+/1B2B+/2B2B+/2B2B+/2B2B+/2BAverage SF590590590575575650650750770860860890890940135013701495950Total Units by name4190102321552191160144189126248P2-GarageP1-Garage72009First Floor4622221322Second Floor464421324Third Floor464421324Fourth Floor422112416TOTAL95P1-GarageFirst Floor22Second Floor22Third Floor22Fourth Floor0TOTAL6P1-GarageFirst Floor121239Second Floor1412311Third Floor1412311Fourth Floor121228TOTAL39P1-GarageFirst Floor0Second Floor0Third Floor114111110Fourth Floor1241111112Fifth Floor1241111112Sixth Floor1241111112Seventh Floor1241111112Eight Floor1241111112Ninth Floor11147Tenth Floor11147Eleveth FloorTOTAL845A - 2 Story Building85B - 3 Story Building65C - 3 Story Building - Confirm Unit #10TOTAL24PARKWAY - PUD APPLICATIONBUILDING 1 - PARKWAY PLACEBUILDINGS 5A & 5B - NOAHBUILDING 3 - PARKWAY COMMONSBUILDING 4 - PARKWAY PLAZABUILDING 2 - TOWNHOMESCity council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 40
5-116 | Livable Community
City of Hopkins
City of Edina
City of Golden Valley
City of MinnetonkaCity of Minneapolis169
169
169
7
394
394
100
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5 5
17
Existing Land Use 2017
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Mixed Use Residential
Retail & Other Commercial
Office
Mixed Use Commercial
Industrial & Utility
Mixed Use Industrial
Institutional
Park, Recreational, or Preserve
Golf Course
Undeveloped
Railroad
ROW
Open Water
2017 City of St. Louis Park
Community Development
´0 0.25 0.5 Miles
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
Figure 5-1. Existing Land Use 2017
City of Hopkins
City of Edina
City of Golden Valley
City of MinnetonkaCity of Minneapolis169
169
169
7
394
394
100
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5 5
17
Existing Land Use 2017
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Mixed Use Residential
Retail & Other Commercial
Office
Mixed Use Commercial
Industrial & Utility
Mixed Use Industrial
Institutional
Park, Recreational, or Preserve
Golf Course
Undeveloped
Railroad
ROW
Open Water
2017 City of St. Louis Park
Community Development
´0 0.25 0.5 Miles
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 41
5-126 | Livable Community
Figure 5-5. 2040 Future Land Use Plan
City of Hopkins
City of Edina
City of Golden Valley
City of MinnetonkaCity of Minneapolis169
169
169
7
394
394
100
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5 5
17
!PlannedTransitwayStations
Green Line Extension
RL -Low Density Residential
RM -Medium Density Residential
RH -High Density Residential
MX -Mixed Use
TOD- TransitOrientedDevelopment
COM - Commercial
OFC -Office
BP -BusinessPark
IND-Industrial
CIV- Civic
PRK-ParkandOpenSpace
ROW -Right ofWay
RRR -Railroad
2018 City of St. Louis Park
Community Development ´0 0.25 0.5 Miles
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
City of Hopkins
City of Edina
City of Golden Valley
City of MinnetonkaCity of Minneapolis
169
169
169
7
394
394
100
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5 5
17
!PlannedTransitwayStations
Green Line Extension
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
TOD - Transit Oriented Development
COM - Commercial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
IND - Industrial
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2018 City of St. Louis Park
Community Development ´0 0.25 0.5 Miles
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 42
Construction Sto,mwater Special waters Search �--�COMe!�
II
•
0
---
0
II 0 0
l
... -...
...
-...
'• < I
4
•·· 1 •!l< ' l
WJ,._$1 ---w,i,.,5e
(\t; ....
;
• • 5 " • • ' -
( t(.t'" . �tn�£1'#\�£•r .. s1
•
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 42
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 44
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
0
9 2 0
920880
8 8 0 8808808 80
880880
880880880
880880
88
0 8 8 0
8 8 0
8 80880
880 880
880 88092 0 880
8 80
880
9208808 8 0
9
20920
8808808808808 8 092
0920
9208 8 0
8 80 920
880880880920880880
8 8 0
8 808 8 0
880880 880920
920
9 2 0
880920880880
880920880880
8 80
8809208808 80
8808
88 088 0 88
0 8808 8 0 880880880880880880880
880
8 8 0 80880
MN
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 45
TC5499642.2s Page A-14
1/2 - 1 Mile WSWMN6000000300171 AM149
1/2 - 1 Mile WSWMN6000000280303 AM148
1/2 - 1 Mile WSWMN6000000280790 AM147
1/2 - 1 Mile WSWMN6000000295052 AM146
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthMN6000000116096 AN144
1/2 - 1 Mile WSWMN6000000307651 AM143
1/2 - 1 Mile NEMN6000000285205 141
1/2 - 1 Mile WestMN6000000216783 AL139
1/2 - 1 Mile WestMN6000000082937 AL138
1/2 - 1 Mile WestMN6000000216784 AL137
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthMN6000000157313 AK136
1/2 - 1 Mile SSWMN6000000243544 AJ129
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthMN6000000113737 AI128
1/2 - 1 Mile ENEMN6000000291073 125
1/2 - 1 Mile NNWMN6000000193314 AH123
1/2 - 1 Mile NEMN6000000282955 AF120
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 46
4-75 | Environmental Stewardship DRAFT
Figure 4-17. Regional Sanitary Sewer System
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 47
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 48
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 49
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 50
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 51
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 52
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 53
PARKWAY COMMMONSSaint Louis Park, MinnesotaJuly 2019PHOTO KEY2
3
7
5
4 6
1
8
9 11
12 13 14 15 16
Plan is N.T.S.
Minne
t
o
n
k
a
B
l
v
d
.
Highway
7
West Lake Street
Inglewood Ave. SouthInglewood Ave. SouthWest 31st Street Glenhurst Ave.France Ave. South10
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 54
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 55
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 56
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 57
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 58
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d) Title: Parkway Residences EAWPage 59
Memorandum
1 CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
SRF No. 12630.00
To: Jennifer Monson, AICP
City of St. Louis Park
From: Tom Sachi, PE, Associate
Zach Toberna, EIT
Date: September 6, 2019
Subject: Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study
Introduction
SRF has completed a traffic and parking study for the proposed residential development located in
the southeast quadrant of the CSAH 25 and Inglewood Avenue intersection in St. Louis Park, MN
(see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations
within the study area, evaluate traffic and parking impacts to the adjacent roadway network, and
recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The following
sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions offered for consideration.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any future impacts associated
with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes various data collection
efforts and an intersection capacity analysis, which are outlined in the following sections.
Data Collection
Vehicle turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected by SRF during the a.m. and
p.m. peak periods the week of April 4, 2019 at the following intersections:
CSAH 25 and France Avenue
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Avenue
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Glenhurst Avenue
CSAH 25/CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood Avenue
Glenhurst Avenue and West 31st Street
Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street
Observations were completed to identify are roadway characteristics (i.e. roadway geometry, speed
limits, and traffic controls). Currently, CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard are four-lane divided
roadways with a 35-mile per hour (mph) posted speed limit in the study area, while other area roadways
are two-lane undivided facilities with 30-mph speed limits. Both CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard
are functionally classified as minor arterials; France Avenue (north of CSAH 25) is functionally
classified as a collector. Other study roadways are functionally classified as local streets. Existing
geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 60
Project Location Figure 1H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdrSt Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthWest 31st St France AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood AveProject
Location
01912630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
125
250 Feet
Planned Southwest Light Rail
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 61
Existing Conditions Figure 2H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig02_Existing Conditions.cdrSt Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthWest 31st St France AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood AveProject
Location
01912630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTYNORTHNorth
- A.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- P.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- Uncontrolled
- Side-Street Stop Controlled
- Three-Way Stop Controlled
- Signalized Controlled
LEGEND
XX
(XX) (52) 119(67) 62(24) 33France Ave309 (377)19 (43)93 (169) CSAH 25
(288) 185
(1022) 983
(43) 20
165 (111)
1363 (933)
22 (42) (2) 4(28) 46(5) 1France Ave28 (40)17 (20)16 (68) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(78) 78
(5) 5
(3) 3
90 (37)
8 (5)
1 (1) (3) 3(1) 1(0) 0Glenhurst Ave 3 (8)1 (0)2 (3) West 31st St
(9) 11
(13) 6
(1) 0
7 (6)
6 (3)
0 (0) (15) 40(1) 0Inglewood Ave 3 (47)7 (27) West 31st St
26 (9)
1 (0) (27) 11(10) 61Inglewood Ave CSAH 25
(893) 827
(102) 22
1088 (703)
3 (9) (6) 9(22) 46(6) 110 (0)4 (42)21 (69) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(0) 0
(57) 7
(27) 4
26 (15)
23 (23)
2 (5)Inglewood Ave (21) 21(40) 43Glenhurst AveCSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(36) 38
(11) 11
35 (32)
5 (5)DrivewayParkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
125
250 Feet
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 62
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 4
Table 1 summarizes the existing traffic control at the study intersections.
Table 1. Existing Traffic Control
Intersection Traffic Control
CSAH 25 and France Avenue Traffic Signal
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Avenue 3-Way Stop Control
(Southbound France Avenue is Uncontrolled)
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Glenhurst Avenue Side-Street Stop Control
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood Avenue 3-Way Stop Control
(Southbound Inglewood Avenue is Uncontrolled)
CSAH 25 and Inglewood Avenue Side-Street Stop Control
Glenhurst Avenue and West 31st Street Uncontrolled*
Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street Uncontrolled*
* Uncontrolled intersections were assumed to operate as all -way yield controlled.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software (V9.2) to
establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis
results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating.
Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay
per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 2. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity . Overall
intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities area.
Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Designation Signalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15
C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25
D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35
E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50
F > 80 > 50
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 63
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 5
For side-street stop/yield-controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate
for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection
with side-street stop/yield control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the
overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the
intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important
to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority
of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline
traffic volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street
approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions.
Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 3 indicate that all study
intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. However, several queuing issues were observed at the CSAH 25/France Avenue signalized
intersection. Eastbound queues along CSAH 25 were observed to extend through the adjacent
signalized intersection at Minnetonka Boulevard approximately 15 to 20 percent of the p.m. peak
hour. Queues on the northbound approach of the CSAH 25/France Avenue intersection regularly
extended to the CSAH 25 Frontage Road during both peak hours. These northbound queues are a
result of limited vehicular storage due to the closely spaced CSAH 25 Frontage Road rath er than an
intersection capacity issue. No other significant delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or
traffic simulation at the study intersections.
Table 3. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
CSAH 25 and France Avenue C 26 sec. C 31 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Avenue (1) A/B 1 sec. A/B 11 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Glenhurst Avenue (1) A/A 9 sec. A/A 9 sec.
CSAH 25 and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/C 16 sec. A/B 14 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 6 sec.
Glenhurst Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
(2) Uncontrolled intersection treated as a side-street yield control intersection for the purpose of the capacity analysis.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 64
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 6
Proposed Developments
The proposed development is generally bounded by the CSAH 25 Frontage Road to the north,
Inglewood Avenue to the west, West 31st Street to the south, and Glenhurst Avenue to the east.
The proposed development has four distinct areas within the project site. Site 1 is currently occupied
by three (3) single-family homes and three (3) 12-unit apartment complexes, which would be replaced
by a 95-unit apartment building. Site 2 is currently occupied by two (2) single-family homes and would
be replaced by six (6) townhomes. Site 3 is currently occupied by a veterinary clinic and would be
replaced by an 11-story, 86-unit apartment building, while Site 4 is currently occupied by three (3)
single-family homes and would be replaced by a 39-unit apartment building. As noted, all current land
uses are planned to be replaced by the proposed development, which is illustrated in Figure 3. The
proposed development was assumed to be fully-completed by the end of year 2024.
Access to the development is proposed at the following locations:
Site 1 Access (1-Locations): Glenhurst Avenue, approximately 80 feet north of West 31st Street;
shared-access with the Parkway 25 Apartments
Site 2 Access (1-Location): Shared access with 3925 West 31st Street, opposite Glenhurst Avenue
Site 3 Access (1-Location): CSAH 25 Frontage Road between Inglewood Avenue and Glenhurst
Avenue
Site 4 Access (1-Location): Inglewood Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of West 31st Street
Within the bounds of the proposed development, there would be a net decrease of six (6) driveways
along West 31st Street and a net decrease of one (1) driveway along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road.
Note that a Site 5 is shown on the site plan, however, these units are slated for renovation and no
changes to unit/parking totals are expected.
Year 2025 No Build Condition
A no build condition was analyzed in order to understand how the study area is expected to operate,
regardless of the proposed development. To help determine future operations, traffic forecasts were
developed for the year 2025 no build condition, which takes into account general area background
growth and other planned area developments. The evaluation of the year 2025 no build condition,
which includes an intersection capacity analysis, is summarized in the following sections.
Traffic Forecasts
To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was
applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2025 background forecasts. This
growth rate is consistent with historical growth in the study area (based on MnDOT AADT volumes),
the Parkway 25 Traffic Study previously completed by SRF in 2016, and Southwest Light Rail Transit
(SWLRT) forecasts. The resultant year 2025 no build condition traffic forecasts are shown in Figure 4.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 65
NORTHNorth0012630
August 2019
Site Plan Figure 3H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig03_Site Plan.cdrSt Louis Park, MN
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
Access Driveway
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 66
Year 2025 No Build Conditions Figure 4H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig04_2025 No Build.cdrSt Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthWest 31st St France AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood AveProject
Location
(10) 10(25) 50(5) 150 (0)5 (45)25 (75) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(0) 0
(60) 10
(30) 5
30 (15)
25 (25)
5 (5)Inglewood Ave01912630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTYNORTHNorth
- A.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- P.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- Uncontrolled
- Side-Street Stop Controlled
- Three-Way Stop Controlled
- Signalized Controlled
LEGEND
XX
(XX) (55) 125(70) 65(25) 35France Ave320 (390)20 (45)100 (175) CSAH 25
(300) 195
(1055) 1015
(45) 25
170 (115)
1405 (965)
25 (45) (30) 15 (10) 65Inglewood Ave CSAH 25
(920) 855
(105) 25
1125 (725)
5 (10) (15) 45(5) 0Inglewood Ave 5 (50)10 (30) West 31st St
30 (10)
5 (0) (5) 5(30) 50(5) 5France Ave30 (45)20 (25)20 (70) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(80) 80
(5) 5
(5) 5
95 (40)
10 (5)
5 (5) (25) 25(40) 45Glenhurst AveCSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(40) 40
(15) 15
40 (35)
5 (5) (5) 5(5) 5(0) 0Glenhurst Ave 5 (10)5 (0)5 (5) West 31st St
(10) 15
(15) 10
(5) 0
10 (10)
10 (5)
0 (0)
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
125
250 Feet
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 67
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 9
Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2025 background traffic
forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Results
of the year 2025 no build intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicates that all study
intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The existing queuing at the CSAH 25 and France Avenue intersection is
expected to continue under year 2025 no build conditions. Additionally, westbound queues are
expected to extend to the adjacent signalized intersection (at Drew Avenue) during the a.m. peak hour
between five (5) and 10 percent of the peak hour.
Table 4. Year 2025 No Build Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
CSAH 25 and France Avenue C 29 sec. C 32 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Avenue (1) B/B 14 sec. A/B 10 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Glenhurst Avenue (1) A/A 9 sec. A/A 9 sec.
CSAH 25 and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/C 17 sec. A/B 16 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/A 6 sec. A/B 11 sec.
Glenhurst Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
(2) Uncontrolled intersection treated as a side-street yield control intersection for the purpose of the capacity analysis.
Year 2025 Build Conditions
To help determine impacts associated with the proposed developments, traffic forecasts were
developed for year 2025 build conditions (i.e. one year after anticipated completion). The year 2025
condition accounts for general area background growth and traffic generated by th e proposed
development. The evaluation of the year 2025 build condition, which includes a trip generation
estimate for the proposed development and intersection capacity analysis, is summarized in the
following sections.
Traffic Forecasts
To help determine impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts were
developed for year 2025 conditions (i.e. one year after anticipated completion). The year 2025 build
condition incorporates the year 2025 no build traffic forecasts, in addition to traffic generated by the
proposed development.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 68
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 10
To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates
for both the existing and proposed land uses were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a
daily basis. These estimates, shown in Table 5, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
Tenth Edition. Note that the existing trip generation estimates were developed to provide a comparison
between existing and proposed land uses and to determine the approximate number of net new
roadway system trips.
Table 5. Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size
A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips Daily
Trips In Out In Out
Existing Land Uses
Site 1: Single-Family Housing (210) 3 DU 1 2 2 1 28
Site 1: Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (220) 36 DU 4 13 13 7 264
Site 2: Single-Family Housing (210) 2 DU 0 1 1 1 19
Site 3: Veterinary Clinic (640) 3,000 SF 7 4 4 6 65
Site 4: Single-Family Housing (210) 3 DU 1 2 2 1 28
Total Existing Site Trips 13 22 22 22 404
Proposed Land Uses
Site 1: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 95 DU 9 25 25 16 517
Site 2: Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (220) 6 DU 1 2 2 1 44
Site 3: High-Rise Multifamily Housing (222) 86 DU 6 20 19 12 383
Site 4: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 39 DU 4 10 10 7 212
Subtotal Trips 20 57 56 36 1,156
Modal Reduction (10%) (-2) (-6) (-6) (-4) (-116)
Total Site Trips 18 51 50 32 1,040
Existing Site Trip Reduction (-13) (-22) (-22) (-22) (-404)
Net New Site Trips 5 29 28 10 636
Note that a 10 percent modal reduction was applied to the proposed development trip generation to
account for available and planned transit options in the study area (Metro Transit Route 17 and future
Green Line LRT). Accounting for the modal reductions, the proposed development is expected to
generate a total of approximately 69 a.m. peak hour, 82 p.m. peak hour, and 1,040 daily trips.
To determine the approximate net change in overall roadway system trips, trips from the existing land
uses were subtracted from the proposed development site trips. Taking into account the existing site
trip reductions, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of approximately 34 a.m.
peak hour, 38 p.m. peak hour, and 636 daily net new system trips.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 69
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 11
These trips were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in
Figure 5, which was developed based on existing area travel patterns and engineering judgment. The
resultant year 2025 build conditions traffic forecasts are shown in Figure 6.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine how the adjacent roadway network will accommodate year 2025 traffic forecasts, an
intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. Results of the
year 2025 build condition intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 6 indicate that all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. The previously identified queuing issues are not expected to significantly change as a result
of the proposed development. Queuing is expected to increase between one (1) and two (2) vehicles
during the peak periods. Note that side-street delays at the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood
Road intersection are expected to decrease during the p.m. peak hour. Although vehicular volumes
increase, this can be attributed to an increase in thru and right-turning vehicles, which have a lower
delay, reducing the overall delay of the approach. No other significant delay or queuing issues are
expected at the study intersections.
It should be noted that no capacity issues were identified in a qualitative review of the proposed
driveways. Given the minimal anticipated impact of the proposed development on study area traffic
operations, no roadway improvements are recommended from an intersection capacity perspective.
Note that based on the results of the year 2025 build condition analysis, an extension of France Avenue
to West 31st Street is not necessary to accommodate traffic forecasts in the area.
Table 6. Year 2025 Build Condition Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
LOS Delay LOS Delay
CSAH 25 and France Avenue C 30 sec. C 32 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Avenue (1) B/C 17 sec. A/B 10 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Glenhurst Avenue (1) A/A 9 sec. A/A 9 sec.
CSAH 25 and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/C 17 sec. A/C 16 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Inglewood Avenue (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 7 sec.
Glenhurst Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street (2) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road and Access (1) A/A 3 sec. A/A 3 sec.
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
(2) Uncontrolled intersection treated as a side-street yield control intersection for the purpose of the capacity analysis.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 70
Project Location Figure 1H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig05_Directional Distribution.cdrSt Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthFrance AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood Ave01912630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
125
250 Feet
Planned Southwest Light Rail
30%
30%
15%25%4051 HIGHWAY 7
4108 W
31ST ST
4100 W
31ST ST
4020 W
31ST ST
4012 W
31ST ST
4008 W
31ST ST 4000 W
31ST ST
4001 W 31ST ST 4009 W 31ST ST 3925 W 31ST ST 3919 W
31ST ST
4125 W
31ST ST
4117 W
31ST ST
4105 W
31ST ST
HIGHW
AY 25
HIG HW A Y 25
GLENHURST AVESER V ICE R O AD
5 STORY
5 STORY
3 STORY
3 STORY3 STORY
2 STORY
2 STORY
4 STORY
5A
11 STORY
WEST 31ST STREET
5B 5C 2
1
3
4
West 31st St
254
3
1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 71
Year 2025 Build Conditions Figure 6H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig06_2025 Build.cdrSt Louis Park, MNNORTHNorth NORTHNorth
- A.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- P.M. Peak Hour Volumes
- Uncontrolled
- Side-Street Stop Controlled
- Three-Way Stop Controlled
- Signalized Controlled
LEGEND
XX
(XX)
4051 HIGHWAY 7
4108 W
31ST ST
4100 W
31ST ST
4020 W
31ST ST
4012 W
31ST ST
4008 W
31ST ST 4000 W
31ST ST
4001 W 31ST ST 4009 W 31ST ST 3925 W 31ST ST 3919 W
31ST ST
4125 W
31ST ST
4117 W
31ST ST
4105 W
31ST ST
HIG HW A Y 25
HIG HW A Y 25
GLENHURST AVESER V ICE RO
AD
5 STORY
5 STORY
3 STORY
3 STORY3 STORY
2 STORY
2 STORY
4 STORY
5A
11 STORY
WEST 31ST STREET
5B 5C 2
1
3
4
West 31st St France AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood Ave0012630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
(5) 5(5) 5(0) 0Glenhurst Ave 5 (15)5 (0)5 (5) West 31st St
(15) 15
(15) 10
(5) 0
10 (10)
10 (5)
0 (0) (5) 5(30) 50(5) 5France Ave35 (65)20 (25)20 (70) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(95) 105
(5) 5
(5) 5
95 (40)
10 (5)
5 (5) (60) 130(75) 75(30) 45France Ave320 (390)25 (55)100 (175) CSAH 25
(300) 195
(1055) 1015
(50) 25
170 (115)
1405 (965)
25 (55) (25) 25(50) 55Glenhurst AveCSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(45) 55
(15) 15
40 (50)
10 (15) (5) 5(5) 10CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(140) 45
(5) 0
55 (50)
0 (10)Access (35) 20(15) 65Inglewood Ave CSAH 25
(925) 855
(115) 25
1125 (725)
5 (10) (10) 10(30) 55(10) 150 (0)10 (50)25 (80) CSAH 25 Frontage Rd
(0) 0
(60) 10
(30) 5
35 (20)
25 (25)
5 (10)Inglewood Ave (20) 50(5) 5Inglewood Ave 5 (55)10 (30) West 31st St
30 (15)
5 (5)
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
125
250 Feet
125
250 Feet
254
3
1
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 72
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 14
Parking Review
The proposed development sites are expected to provide a total of 331 off-street parking spaces and
12 on-street spaces based on the information provided by the development team. A review of both
City Code and ITE parking demand values was completed to determine if the proposed parking supply
is sufficient to accommodate the proposed developments. The City Code was reviewed and
determined to require one parking space per bedroom within multi-family residential developments.
A parking analysis based on the City Code is presented within Table 7.
Table 7. Parking Demand Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Units Bedrooms Supply City Code
Reqs
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Site 1: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 95 111 139 111 +28
Site 2: Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (220) 6 12 12 12 0
Site 3: High-Rise Multifamily Housing (222) 86 107 146 107 +39
Site 4: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 39 39 34 39 (-5)
Total 226 269 331 269 +62
Based on the City Code requirements, development sites 1,2, and 3 are expected to meet the City
Code parking requirements for off-street parking. Site 4 is expected to have a deficit of five (5) spaces.
However, the developer has noted that there are 12 off-street parking spaces around the site which
may be used to alleviate this deficit, if necessary.
The estimate of the anticipated parking demand for the proposed development per dwelling unit was
completed using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, Fifth Edition for the average and 85th percentile
peak parking demand rates. Results of the parking analysis shown in Table 8 indicate that as whole,
the development is expected to provide adequate parking to meet both the average and 85th percentile
parking demands.
Table 8. Parking Demand Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code) Units Supply
ITE Parking Code
Average Surplus/
(Deficit) 85th% Surplus/
(Deficit)
Site 1: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 95 139 124 +15 140 (-1)
Site 2: Low-Rise Multifamily Housing (220) 6 12 7 +5 9 +3
Site 3: High-Rise Multifamily Housing (222) 86 146 84 +62 102 +44
Site 4: Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 39 34 51 (-17) 57 (-23)
Total 226 331 266 +65 308 +23
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 73
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 15
Overall, there is expected to be between a 23 and 65 space surplus based on the ITE parking demand
rates for the site as a whole. However, when the average and 85th percentile rates are reviewed for
each individual site, there are expected to be deficits. The deficits are detailed in the following:
It is expected that Site 4 will have a 17 space deficit based on the ITE average parking demand
rate and a 23 space deficit based on the 85th percentile demand rate.
It is expected that Site 1 will have a one (1) space deficit based on the ITE 85th percentile parking
demand rate.
In order to alleviate the deficits for sites 1 and 4, a review of the existing on-street parking
supply/demand was completed to determine if sufficient on-street parking capacity is available to
accommodate the expected deficits. On-street parking was reviewed during three (3) overnight (i.e.
peak residential parking) time periods the week of August 5, 2019. The peak demands are shown in
Figure 7. Based on these parking utilization surveys, the following takeaways are noted:
There is expected to be limited parking availability along both West 31st Street between Inglewood
Avenue and Ewing Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue. These roadways were approximately 90 to 95
percent utilized during the peak periods, with approximately up to five (5) spaces available.
Inglewood Avenue between south of West 31st Street and CSAH 25 Frontage Road is
approximately 50 percent utilized, with approximately eight (8) spaces available.
CSAH 25 Frontage Road between Inglewood Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue is approximately 65
percent utilized, with approximately nine (9) spaces available.
It is not expected that the on-street parking can accommodate all of the expected deficit between
Sites 1 and 4 based on the 85th percentile parking demand, and therefore, these sites may need to
identify other parking options, if necessary.
A potential option is to contract/identify an agreement with any available parking capacity at other
sites, particularly Site 3, which is expected to have over 40 spaces of surplus capacity. Note that the
distance between Sites 3 and 4 is approximately 200 feet. If this agreement was done, the available on-
street parking could be utilized to accommodate guest parking if no specific guest parking is provided
within the development parking lots. Another option would be to implement travel demand
management strategies that encourage less vehicular dependence and ownership at Site 4. These could
include unbundling parking from the rent, limit units to one (1) space per unit, providing multimodal
accommodations via bicycle parking and repair stations or transit incentives, or potentially providing
delivery services for grocery and other errand types.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 74
NORTHNorth0012630
August 2019
On-Street Peak Parking Demands Figure 7H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig08_On-Street Parking Demands.cdrSt Louis Park, MN
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
26/26
26/2611/1110/105/54/424/27
21/237/100/03/80/04/10
12/15
0/0
0/0
7/7
0/0
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 75
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 17
Site Plan Review
A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential
improvements with regard to site access, traffic circulation, parking, and pedestrian connectivity. The
following information summarizes the findings.
Site Access
Since the proposed driveways are expected to operate adequately without any apparent safety issues
and represent a net decrease in overall access for the proposed development area, the proposed
driveways are considered appropriate.
Traffic Circulation
Truck turning movements should be reviewed to ensure that garbage/delivery trucks have adequate
accommodations to negotiate internal parking lot aisles. The movement of general passenger vehicles
within the parking lots is not expected to be an issue.
Pedestrian Connectivity
The proposed site plan includes sidewalks along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road, Glenhurst Avenue, and
Inglewood Avenue. The sidewalks have appropriate connections to the development as well as to
proposed parking lots. These sidewalk connections can help accommodate multimodal users, which
can reduce vehicular impacts on area roadways. The new proposed pedestrian accommodations are
shown in Figure 8. These sidewalk improvements will help provide connections for residents and
guests to utilize transit or the extensive trail network. The available and planned multimodal options
are shown in Figure 9.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 76
NORTHNorth0012630
August 2019
Proposed Sidewalk Improvements Figure 8H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig07_Proposed Pedestrian Accomodations.cdrSt Louis Park, MN
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
New Sidewalk
New Proposed
Sidewalks
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 77
Multimodal Options Figure 9H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig01_Project Location.cdrSt Louis Park, MN NORTHNorthNorth Cedar Lake Trail/Midtown Greenway
T
T
T
T
TT T T TT T TT
West 31st St France AveMinnetonka Blvd
CSAH
2
5 Inglewood AveProject
Location
01912630
August 2019 Glenhurst AveCSAH
2
5
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
d
25
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Parkway Residences Traffic and Parking Study
Planned Southwest Light Rail
LRT
Station
LRT
Station
T
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 78
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 20
Summary and Conclusions
The following study summary and conclusions are offered for your consideration:
1) Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently
operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However,
several queuing issues were observed at the CSAH 25/France Avenue signalized intersection:
a) Eastbound queues along CSAH 25 extended through the adjacent signalized intersection at
Minnetonka Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour approximately 15 to 20 percent of the p.m.
peak hour.
b) Northbound France Avenue queues regularly extended to the CSAH 25 Frontage Road during
both peak hours. These northbound queues are a result of limited vehicular storage due to the
closely spaced CSAH 25 Frontage Road rather than an intersection capacity issue.
2) The proposed developments are generally bound by the CSAH 25 Frontage Road to the north,
Inglewood Avenue to the west, West 31st Street to the south, and Glenhurst Avenue to the east,
which are currently occupied by eight (8) single family homes, three (3) 12-unit apartments, and a
veterinary clinic. Construction of the proposed development was assumed to be complete by the
end of the year 2024. Access to the developments are proposed at the following locations:
a) Site 1: Glenhurst Avenue about 80 feet north of West 31st Street and shared access with
Parkway 25 Apartments
b) Site 2: Via 3925 West 31st Street, opposite Glenhurst Avenue
c) Site 3: CSAH 25 Frontage Road, between Inglewood Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue
d) Site 4: Inglewood Avenue approximately 100 feet south of West 31st Street
3) To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent
was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop ye ar 2025 (i.e. one year after
construction) background forecasts.
4) The proposed developments are expected to generate a total of approximately
69 a.m. peak hour, 82 p.m. peak hour, and 1,040 daily trips.
a) Accounting for vehicles already generated by the existing land uses that are proposed to be
removed, the development is expected to generate a total of approximately 34 a.m. peak hour,
38 p.m. peak hour, and 636 daily net new system trips.
5) Results of the year 2025 no build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections
are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
a) Previously documented queuing issues at the intersection of CSAH 25 and France Avenue
remain similar for year 2025 conditions, with westbound queues occasionally reaching the
adjacent signalized intersection at Drew Avenue five (5) to 10 percent of the a.m. peak hour.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 79
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 21
6) Results of the year 2025 no build intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections
are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
a) Minimal increases in queueing are expected (i.e. between one (1) and two (2) vehicles).
b) No other significant delay or queuing issues are expected at the study intersections.
c) No capacity issues were identified in a qualitative review of the proposed access locations.
7) Given the minimal anticipated impact caused by the adjacent and proposed developments on
study area traffic operations, no roadway improvements are needed from an intersection capacity
perspective.
8) Based on the City Code requirements, development sites 1,2, and 3 are expected to meet the City
Code parking requirements for off-street parking. Site 4 is expected to have a deficit of five (5)
spaces.
9) It is expected that Site 4 will have a 17 space deficit based on the ITE average parking demand
rate and a 23 space deficit based on the 85th percentile demand rate.
10) It is expected that Site 1 will have a one (1) space deficit based on the ITE 85th percentile parking
demand rate.
11) Overall, there is expected to be between a 23 and 65 space surplus based on the ITE parking
demand rates for the site as a whole.
12) There is expected to be parking availability along the following roadways
a) West 31st Street between Inglewood Avenue and Ewing Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue.
These roadways were approximately 90 to 95 percent utilized during the peak periods, with
approximately up to five (5) spaces available.
b) Inglewood Avenue between south of West 31st Street and CSAH 25 Frontage Road is
approximately 50 percent utilized, with approximately eight (8) spaces available.
c) CSAH 25 Frontage Road between Inglewood Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue is approximately
65 percent utilized, with approximately nine (9) spaces available.
13) It is not expected that the on-street parking can accommodate all of the expected deficit between
Sites 1 and 4 based on the 85th percentile parking demand, and therefore, these sites may need to
identify other parking options, if necessary.
14) These options including entering into a shared parking agreement with an adjacent building or
implementing travel demand management strategies to reduce vehicle ownership to meet the
expected demand.
15) A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential
improvements with regard to site access, traffic circulation, parking, and pedestrian connectivity.
The following information summarizes the findings:
a) The proposed driveways are considered appropriate.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 80
Parkway Residences Development Traffic and Parking Study September 6, 2019
Page 22
b) Truck turning movements should be reviewed to ensure that garbage/delivery trucks have
adequate accommodations to negotiate internal parking lot aisles.
c) Sidewalks are proposed along both the CSAH 25 Frontage Road, Glenhurst Avenue, and
Inglewood Avenue. The sidewalks have appropriate connections to the developments as well
as to proposed parking lots.
H:\Projects\12000\12630\TraffStudy\Reports\Report\12630_Final_ParkwayResidencesTraffic_Parking_Study_190906.docx
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 81
N o v em be r 20 , 20 19
Je nn ifer M o n s on , Pla nne r
C ity of S t. Lo u is P ark
5 00 5 M in ne tonka B oule v a rd
St. Lo u is P ark , M N 5 54 16
RE: City of St. Louis Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) -
Parkway Residences
Metropolitan Council Review No. 22363-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 6, Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretsen
Dear Ms. Monson:
The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the proposed Parkway Residences
development on October 10, 2019. The proposed development is located along 31st Street
West near Glenhurst Avenue South and consists of four new multi-family buildings creating 224
new units. The project will also include the rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings
that contain 24 units for a project total of 248 residential units.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete with respect to regional concerns and does not
raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional
purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Required (Jim Larson, 651-602-1159)
In accordance with Minnesota Statute Section 473.513, at the time the City makes
application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for a permit to construct
each segment of the proposed local sanitary sewer on the site, a copy of the plans,
design data, and location map of the project will need to be submitted to the Metropolitan
Council. The Council's Environmental Service Engineering Programs staff will need to
review, comment, and issue a non-objection decision relative to issuance of the
construction permit by the MPCA before connection can be made to the City's
wastewater disposal system.
Item 9- Land Use (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322)
The proposed development includes four new apartment buildings with 224 units and the
rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings (24 units). The EAW acknowledges a
need for a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide portions of the site currently
guided as Medium Density Residential. Council staff does not recommend a forecast
adjustment as part of the amendment. This site is a small part of Transportation Analysis
Zone (TAZ) #1394. The TAZ forecast allocation for TAZ #1394 adequately anticipates
new development and redevelopment in the area.
390 Robert Street North I Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805
P. 651.602.1000 I TTY. 651.291.0904 I metrocouncil.org
A n Equal Opp ortunity Em ployer
M ETROPO LITAN COUNCIL
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 82
Je nnifer M o ns o n , C ity of S t. Louis P a r k
N ove m ber 20, 2 0 19
Pag e 2
Item 9- Land Use (Michael Larson, 651-602-1407)
The EAW addresses the need for a comprehensive plan amendm ent. A portion of the
project (Site 4) is guided Transit Oriented Developm ent (TOD) (50-125 units per acre).
The remaining sites are guided Medium Density Residential. The EAW suggests a
reguiding from Medium Density (6 to 30 units per acre) to High Density Residential (30
to 75 units per acre). The overall density of all project components is 71 units per acre.
Council staff suggest that the City consider altern ative courses of action with respect to
reguiding as follows:
• The pro posed densities of Site 2 (NOAH replacement) and Site 5 (rehabilitated
housing), w hich are adjacent to each other on the south side of W. 31st Street,
appear to fall within the existing guiding density of Medium Density Residential. A
reguiding may not be necessary in these cases.
• The pro posed project densities of Site 1 (68 units per acre) and Site 3 (72 units per
acre) meet the minimum density for TOD. The City should consider reguiding these
sites to be consistent with the guiding land for Site 4.
The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) establishes minimum densities for areas
planned for new residential development or redevelopm ent in light rail transit station
areas. For Urban Center communities, including St. Louis Park, that minimum is 50 units
per acre. We encourage the City to consult Council staff to ensure that the approach to
the comprehensive plan am endment conforms with the TPP.
Item 11 b - Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119)
The EAW describe a proposed project that may have an impact on multiple Metro politan
Council Interceptors in m ultiple locations (including two force mains w ithin the County
Road 25 Service Road right-of way, north of the proposed project). To assess the
potential impacts to our interceptor system; prior to initiating this project, preliminary
plans (including the method and means of providing wastewater service through the
local wastewater system ) should be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering
Assistant Manager (651-602-4571) at Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.
Item 11.b.ii -Water Resources - Stormwater (Jim Larson, 651-602-1159)
The EAW states that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District perm its no increase in
stormwater rates over existing conditions for the 1-, 10- and 100-year storm events,
using rainfall depth and Type II distribution data from National Weather Service
Technical P aper No. 40 (TP-40). The EAW should be corrected by referring to the
National O ceanic & Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA ) National W eather Service
A tlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. These superseded the 1961 TP-40 estim ates
in 2013.
This concludes the Council's review of the EAW . The Council will not take formal action on the
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 83
Je nnife r M o n son, C ity o f S t. Lo uis P a rk
N ov e m b e r 20 , 201 9
Pag e 2
EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Michael Larson,
Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1407.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretsen, Metropolitan Council District 6
Michael Larson, AICP, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer
Raya Esmaeili, Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\St. Louis Park\Letters\St. Louis Park 2019 EAW Parkway Residences 22353-1.docx
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 84
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 85
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 86
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 87
From:Horton, Becky (DNR)
To:Jennifer Monson
Subject:Parkway Residences EAW - DNR comments
Date:Monday, November 18, 2019 11:01:41 AM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jennifer Monson,
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Parkway Residence development project. Regarding
matters for which the DNR has regulatory responsibility or other interests, we offer the
following comments for your consideration.
As a reminder, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if there would be dewatering of
ground, stream, lake, or pond water in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one
million gallons per year. This applies to both permanent and temporary dewatering.
·For this project, if construction dewatering of surface water and ground water for the
grading of the site, placing footings for new buildings, and placing new utilities to the
structures requires dewatering that exceeds these volumes, an Appropriation Permit
will be required.
·Areas of high ground water exist immediately west of Lake Bde Maka Ska, if there is a
need for permanent dewatering for the proposed underground parking, then a
separate long-term DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required for the
dewatering system.
·A DNR Water Appropriation Permit is not required for the use of storm water for the
irrigation of landscaping from a constructed storm water facility. The use of storm
water for landscape irrigation would reduce pollution downstream of the site and
should be considered.
DNR information indicates that the project site is located within the City of Edina drinking
water supply management area. Potential pollutants of ground water should be handled with
care to protect the City of Saint Louis Park’s water supply (page 10).
If there are any questions on if an DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required, please contact
Joe Richter (joe.richter@state.mn.us).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments.
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 88
Sincerely,
Becky
Rebecca Horton
Planner Principal| Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
Phone: 651-259-5122
Email: becky.horton@state.mn.us
mndnr.gov
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Parkway Residences EAW Page 89
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Action agenda item: 8e
Executive summary
Title: Off-sale intoxicating liquor resolution revision
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution amending Resolution Nos. 17-196, 18-026,
18-71 and 18-198 limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses issued in St. Louis
Park.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support extending the current limit on the number
of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses by two months in order to complete implementation of
zoning map amendments recommended by city staff?
Summary: The city council adopted Resolution 17-196 that limited the number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses to 15 licenses in December 2017. In February 2018 the council
adopted Resolution 18-026 reducing the limit to 13 licenses. In May 2018 the sunset provision
was extended to December 31, 2018. In December 2018 the sunset date was extended again to
December 31, 2019. Staff provided an update to the city council at its October 28, 2019 study
session. Staff provided a written update on the city’s progress on November 26, 2018.
The process of reviewing off-sale intoxicating liquor license regulations and other official
controls is nearly complete and expected to be effective by mid-January of 2020. Therefore,
staff recommends the city council extend the time period once again; this time for only two
more months. This will avoid the temporary limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses
from expiring before the city completes the changes to the official controls.
City Code Section 3-72 allows the city council to restrict the number of any type of liquor
license by resolution. The city attorney is comfortable with staff’s proposal to extend the limit
on the number of off-sale liquor licenses for another two months to February 29, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Title: Off-sale intoxicating liquor resolution revision
Resolution No. 19-____
Resolution revising Resolution Nos. 17-196, 18-026 18-071 and 18-198
limiting number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses
Whereas, on December 18, 2017 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-196 whereby
the City Council restricted the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to fifteen (15) until
June 30, 2018; and
Whereas, on February 5, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-026 whereby
the City Council restricted the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to thirteen (13) until
June 30, 2018; and
Whereas, on May 7, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-071 whereby the
City Council restricted the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to thirteen (13) until
December 31, 2018; and
Whereas, on December 17, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution 18-198 whereby the
City Council restricted the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to thirteen (13) until
December 31, 2019; and
Whereas, the City remains concerned about the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses issued on a per capita basis compared to neighboring and other comparable cities; and
Whereas, the City Council has regulatory concerns about this relatively high number and
location of off-sale liquor establishments in the City; and
Whereas, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interest of the City and its
citizens to engage in more detailed studies to determine if additional regulations are needed; and
Whereas, the City Council also believes that it is appropriate and in the best interest of
the City and its citizens to limit the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the existing
number of issued licenses at this time that are currently being utilized while the City Council
studies the issue; and
Whereas, the city has completed its study and review and in the process of amending its
official controls and the City Council finds it is in the best interest of the city and its citizens to
limit the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the existing number of issued licenses
at this time that are currently being utilized until the official controls have been amended and are
in effect; and
Whereas, in accordance with State law, City Code Section 3-72 allows the City Council by
resolution to restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued by the City.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
City council meeting of December 2, 2019 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Title: Off-sale intoxicating liquor resolution revision
1. Pursuant to St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-72, the total number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses issued in the City will be restricted to thirteen (13).
2. The only off-sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the
continued operation of a liquor store by a new or existing owner at a location that
is currently utilizing the existing licensed premises.
3. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending
and future applications and shall expire on February 29, 2020.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 2, 2019
__________________________________ ______________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Closed Executive Session
Meeting date: December 2, 2019
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: City manager’s 2019 performance evaluation
Recommended action: Consultant Gordon Goodwin will facilitate a discussion with the city
manager and council regarding feedback collected from the performance evaluation. Council
and City Manager Tom Harmening will review the information and set general direction for
2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: The city council and city manager will discuss the city manager’s performance
evaluation in a closed executive session. The information will be sent to Council under separate
cover.
Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next regular
council meeting.
In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law
states:
“All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be
electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law,
the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.”
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager