Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020/04/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA APRIL 6, 2020 All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by Mayor Jake Spano March 16, 2020, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Additionally, city facilities are closed to the public through April 10 in keeping with the March 25, 2020, Executive Order 20-20 issued by Gov. Tim Walz directing Minnesotans to Stay at Home March 28 through April 10. Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the April 6, 2020 city council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can monitor this meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17, or CenturyLink SD channel 8117 and HD channel 8617 ) or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 359 770 50 for audio only. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members and staff participating from multiple locations. Members of the public wishing to address the city council should call 952-928-1304 to provide public comment on the consent agenda and 952-562-2888 to provide public comment on item 8a Cedar Place (The Quentin) comp plan amendment. If you wish to provide public comment, please call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and comments will be taken during each item in the order they are received. Public comments must relate to an item on the current city council agenda. 6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1.Call to order 2.Roll call 3.Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes of March 16, 2020 4.Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar EDA consent calendar 4a. Accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of February 22, through March 27, 2020. 4b. • Adopt Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the EDA and Eric Wanta for 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard and authorize the President and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to complete the real estate transaction. • Adopt Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the EDA and Ray and Joelyn Spear for 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard and authorize the President and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to complete the real estate transaction. 4c. Adopt Resolution of support for CommonBond’s submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program for its Prince of Peace project. 7.New business -- None Meeting of April 6, 2020 City council agenda 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1.Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations -- None 3.Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 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.) 5.Boards and commissions -- None 6.Public hearings – None 7.Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None 8.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Cedar Place redevelopment Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 5 affirmative votes); and •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Cedar Place Addition (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding resolutions 1953 and 1988 relating to property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 16 to the zoning code and amending the zoning map from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to PUD 16, and set the second reading for April 20, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) 9. Communications – None 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 April 6, 2020 City council agenda Consent calendar 4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of February 22, through March 27, 2020. 4b. Reject the bids received on March 5, 2020 for the Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project. 4c. Adopt Resolution to recognize Office Assistant Karen Murphy for her 25 years of service. 4d. Designate Visu-Sewer as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $314,318.05 for the sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation project no. 4020-3000. 4e. Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 17-177, removing permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue. 4f. • Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Cedarwood Dachis Addition. •Motion to adopt Resolution approving a variance to allow an accessory structure in the side yard. 4g. Approve right of way purchase for parcel 1 and parcel 2 for Dakota bikeway and bridge project. 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. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 16, 2020 1. Call to order President Harris called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. Commissioners present: President Harris, Tim Brausen, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano). 2. Roll call 3. Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes of March 2, 2020 It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA meeting minutes of March 2, 2020, as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar - none 5. Reports 5a. Structurally substandard building designation – 31st Street West (Parkway Residences) EDA Resolution No. 20-01 Mr. Harmening presented the report. He noted the developer has asked for a tax increment district here and would like to tear down the buildings soon. Commissioner Rog stated this is a neighborhood where residents cannot live there any longer if buildings are demolished. All residents have been successfully relocated in other Sela-owned properties in St. Louis Park, and this is helpful to these folks, she commented. Commissioner Rog added she wished there was more deconstruction with these properties, but staff noted there was not much to be salvaged within the properties and Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: EDA meeting minutes of March 16, 2020 the backlog at deconstruction companies is very long. She stated she supports this and the next steps. Commissioner Mavity recognized Commissioner Rog for her work on this and staff’s help as well. She appreciates the developer taking this risk, and while there is no guarantee of TIF, it moves this in the right direction. It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 20-01 designating certain buildings along 31st Street structurally substandard to a degree requiring removal. 6. Old business – none 7. New business – none 8. Communications – none 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Rachel Harris, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2020 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 February 22, through March 27, 2020. 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 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:23:49R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 252.00AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 252.00 17.00BARTON, KAREN DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 17.00 3,628.75EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.464900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.42HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,221.25 4,500.00ESRIDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 4,500.00 10,000.00FRANZEN LAW & POLICY GROUP LLC HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES 10,000.00 10,000.00FRIENDS OF THE ARTS PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,000.00 324,893.42HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WEST END TIF DIST BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 6,782.43DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 4,248.33DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES 335,924.18 637.72IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 637.72 221.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 221.00 Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 2 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:23:49R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 3,000.00 2,750.00MARQUETTE ADVISORS, INC.BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,750.00 6,250.00MCCDDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,250.00 125.00MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESS JOURNAL DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00 3,473.26SLP NEST DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,473.26 55,546.34ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB 55,546.34 Report Totals 438,917.75 Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 3 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the EDA and Eric Wanta for 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard and authorize the President and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to complete the real estate transaction. •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the EDA and Ray and Joelyn Spear for 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard and authorize the President and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to complete the real estate transaction. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to acquire the properties at 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard to facilitate future redevelopment of the property with affordable housing? Summary: For the March 23, 2020 study session, staff provided a report regarding the purchase of the the single-family properties at 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard. Staff did not receive any feedback about not pursuing the purchase. Staff subsequently negotiated purchase agreements for both properties. Purchasing these two properties would complete the property assemblage at this location when combined with the EDA’s previous purchase of two neighboring properties to the east. It is proposed that the EDA purchase the 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard property for $279,500 and the 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard property for $260,000. The proposed agreements have been prepared and approved by the EDA’s legal counsel. Closings for both properties would occur in the coming weeks. Upon acquisition, staff will pursue deconstruction and demolition of the homes, allowing for a majority of the materials to be reused. Staff will subsequently contact affordable housing developers to determine if there is a partnership opportunity to develop affordable housing on the site. A proposal for any such a partnership would be brought to the council for input. Financial or budget considerations: The $539,500 cost to acquire both properties is allocated within the 2020 Development Fund budget. The EDA would incur minimal costs related to property management before the property is redeveloped. The cost of acquisition and related expenses would be covered by the Development Fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion EDA resolutions Purchase agreements available by contacting the Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: Julie Grove, economic development specialist 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 April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard Discussion Aerial view of proposed property acquisitions Background: The subject properties are adjacent to two other single-family homes recently acquired by the EDA. A city-owned alley runs immediately to the south of three of the properties and between the two properties proposed for acquisition. All four properties are zoned R-4 medium-density multi-family residential. They are located between a 60-unit apartment complex and a church. Completing the property assemblage would enable the EDA to facilitate the development of medium density housing on the four-parcel site (such as row homes or townhomes) including affordable housing units. In May 2018, the EDA purchased the foreclosed, single-family property at 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard. Last year, staff was approached by owners of the neighboring property, located at 5643 Minnetonka Blvd, inquiring if the EDA would be interested in purchasing their property. The EDA then purchased that property in July 2019. This winter, staff was separately approached by the two remaining property owners located at 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd inquiring if the EDA would be interested in purchasing their respective properties. Staff subsequently negotiated a purchase price of $279,500 for the 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard property and $260,000 for the 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard property. The City Assessor examined these values and concurred that the proposed purchase prices were within market ranges. The purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd were prepared and approved by the EDA’s legal counsel. Closings for both properties would occur in the coming weeks. Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard EDA ownership of all four properties would allow the city to continue efforts to facilitate and guide redevelopment of these properties and expand the city’s stock of affordable housing. Upon acquisition, staff will contact potential affordable development partners to determine the options of developing long term affordable, non-traditional housing such as row homes or townhomes. Recommendations for such a project will be brought to the EDA/city council for input. Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Eric R. Wanta Be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 (the "EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"). 1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is acquisition of a single-family property to pursue affordable housing goals in the City located at 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard and as legally described as: Lot 4, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 323, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (the “Property”). 1.03. There has been presented before the Board a Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the purchase of the Property between the Authority and the Seller of the Property, Eric R. Wanta (the “Seller”). 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City, its residents and will further the objectives of the Authority’s general plan of economic development. Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01. The Agreement as presented to the Board on the date of this Resolution is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Agreement and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder. Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Rachel Harris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving the purchase agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Ray and Joelyn Spear Be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"). 1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is acquisition of a single-family property to pursue affordable housing goals in the City located at 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard and as legally described as: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1105, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (The “Property”). 1.03. There has been presented before the Board a Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) setting forth the terms and conditions of the purchase of the Property between the Authority and the Seller of the Property, Ray and Joelyn Spear (“Seller”). 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City, its residents and will further the Authority’s general plan for economic development. Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01. The Agreement as presented to the Board on the date of this Resolution is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Agreement and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder. Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Purchase agreements for 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Rachel Harris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Resolution for CommonBond’s Hennepin County TOD grant application for Prince of Peace project Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution of support for CommonBond’s submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program for its Prince of Peace project. Policy consideration: Does the EDA support CommonBond’s application for a TOD grant to facilitate its proposed affordable housing redevelopment at the Prince of Peace church site? Summary: CommonBond has a purchase agreement for the Prince of Peace church at 8115 MN Highway 7. The developer would like to redevelop the site and build a four story, 120-unit apartment building. This development, as currently outlined, would include 57 one-bedroom units, 39 two-bedroom units, and 24 three-bedroom units. The project will be 100% affordable, with income restrictions ranging between 30%-80% AMI on the units. CommonBond is currently in discussions with Westwood Lutheran Church’s early childcare center to co-locate on the site and operate a new, affordable early childhood center. In February, CommonBond applied for a Hennepin County TOD grant to help defray some of its public improvement costs. Specifically, CommonBond is applying for $600,000 for acquisition, demolition of the current building, bike infrastructure, and an underground stormwater system. As part of this application, Hennepin County is requesting the city provide a resolution of support indicating that it supports the 2020 grant application. This resolution of support is attached. Financial or budget considerations: The grant program does not require any financial match from the city. CommonBond is the grant applicant for both, and should funds be awarded, CommonBond would work directly with Hennepin County to administer the grant. 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: Julie Grove, economic development specialist Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Resolution for CommonBond’s Hennepin County TOD grant application for Prince of Peace project EDA Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution of support of an application for a Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) grant submitted by CommonBond for redevelopment at 8115 MN Highway 7 Whereas, the Authority acknowledges the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has authorized approximately $2.2 million for transit-oriented development (TOD) projects; and Whereas, CommonBond submitted an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development Program; and Whereas, the grant funds will be used for certain public improvement costs associated with the proposed redevelopment project at 8115 MN Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development Program Guidelines require support by the governing body of the City of St. Louis Park for submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development Program; and Now therefore be it resolved that the Authority, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 383B.77, subd. 3., supports the submission of a Transit Oriented Development Program grant application to the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority by CommonBond for the proposed development-Prince of Peace. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Rachel Harris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 18, 2020 1. Call to order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), CFO (Mr. Simon) Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Transportation Engineer (Mr. Manibog), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), Public Works Services Manager (Mr. Okey). Guests: Residents of St. Louis Park 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. Retirement recognition for Office Assistant Jean Zimmerman Mayor Spano read a resolution and presented Ms. Zimmerman with a plaque thanking her for her 21 years of dedicated service to the city. Ms. Zimmerman thanked the city manager and council for their support and recognition. Mr. Okey also thanked Ms. Zimmerman for her hard work on behalf of the city staff and wished her the best in her retirement. Mayor Spano also thanked Bill Ryan for his service to the city as a member of the fire department since 1996. 2b. Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Ms. Bakken presented an annual update on the activities of Discover St. Louis Park, the city’s destination marketing organization. She stated that the lodging tax collection increased in 2019 by approximately $43,450 and tourism’s total economic impact was up 26%. She noted the annual average occupancy rate is 71%, which remains an attractive number for potential hotel growth and expansion in the city. Ms. Bakken reviewed trends related to visitor characteristics and demographics, as well as the City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 marketing tactics utilized by DSLP staff to promote St. Louis Park and Golden Valley as attractive destinations for visitors. Councilmember Harris asked how to sign up for the bimonthly e-newsletter. Ms. Bakken stated people can sign up to receive the newsletter on the DSLP website. Councilmember Kraft stated the web traffic from Iowa residents grew dramatically and he would be interested to learn more about that particular increase and asked Ms. Bakken what was most effective thing DSLP was doing from a marketing perspective. Ms. Bakken stated digital marketing is very effective and is something that is used heavily by DSLP staff as a tool to target specific audiences. She noted Iowa residents are particularly interested in sporting and concert events occurring in the metro area and DSLP made a concerted effort to target marketing efforts to Iowa residents and saw the direct impact of those efforts correlate to traffic on their website. Councilmember Mohamed liked the presentation but noted she did not see persons of color represented in the presentation or materials. She added she would like to see more photos of the diverse population and culture within St. Louis Park because when she is travelling, she likes to see that the places are inclusive and accepting. She likes to see herself in the city. She urged that the representation of diversity within the city be done in an organic and authentic way. Councilmember Rog noted 52% of tourism is day trippers and asked what the top reasons were for people visiting St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken stated a lot of people visit the city during the day for restaurants, particularly at the West End, and to attend events in the community. Councilmember Rog echoed the previous comments related to inclusion and making sure the marketing materials are representative of the those living in the community and the state. She encouraged DSLP to look for ways to diversify the members of their board, so the organization is inclusive and representative of the community. Mayor Spano stated when DSLP was originally formed there was a bit of skepticism related to the need for such an organization in the community. He noted over time the business and hotel owners have become the biggest champions of DSLP and that is a testament to the work being done to promote tourism in the community. 2c. Recognition of donations Mayor Spano recognized Joe Marks for donating $50 to the Westwood Hills Nature Center for the “Be the Light” winter solstice walk; Joseph and Kristine Cook for donating $300 for a memorial tree to be planted in Wolfe Park honoring Bev and Jerry Slavin; a $2,500 donation from the MN Society of Arboriculture for Jim Vaughan to attend the 2020 International Society of Arboriculture Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and, Park Coin for their donation for fire prevention programs and equipment. 3. Approval of minutes City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 3a. City council meeting minutes of Jan. 6, 2020 Councilmember Kraft noted a correction to item 1a that should read “…He stated we are in a climate crisis and wants us as a council, staff, and community to ask ourselves if we are acting as if it’s a crisis and what would it look like to act this way…” He also noted several corrections to item 8a. “…Councilmember Kraft recited part of the ordinance, and then noted that on December 31, 2019, the CDC website was updated to clearly indicate that Vitamin E acetate is associated with the problems being experienced, with black market THC being sold. He added cases have been declining since a peak in September and it no longer appears there is a major health crisis around vaping lung injuries. “…Dr. Michael Siegel, a Professor in Dept of Community Health at Boston University - who has 32 years of experience in tobacco control and previously testified in a landmark lawsuit against the tobacco companies...” “…He stated that instead of legal and well-regulated, it appears the FDA has been slow in doing their job and we have a legal and unregulated or poorly regulated situation, which could be an argument for instituting a ban until the FDA has either approved or not approved these devices (this is precisely what the American Medical Association has asked for)…” “…He stated he will vote against the ordinance for four reasons it’s an open-ended ban and not dependent on the FDA properly regulating the industry … ordinance states the main reason we’re doing this is "in light of the immediate health threat posed by EVALI” - but the latest data indicates that this is no longer the case Has had discussions with folks at the schools, and he does not think this will curb vaping at the schools, especially as we already have a 21 and over ordinance in place…” It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the Jan. 6, 2020 meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. Study session minutes of Jan. 13, 2020 Councilmember Harris noted a correction to a word on page 3, which should be “strengthen.” City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Councilmember Rog noted on page 2, it should read, “…discuss removing mint and menthol from the policy…” Councilmember Rog noted a spelling correction, which should be Latricia Vetaw. Councilmember Rog also noted on page 6, it should read, “…would like to add a state match for local housing trust funds…” Councilmember Kraft noted on page 2 it should read, “Councilmember Kraft spoke about a study session topic raised by Councilmember Rog and himself on conversion therapy in St. Louis Park”, on page 6, it should read, “…creating net zero energy including with the use of solar panels…”, and on page 8, it should read, “Councilmember Kraft stated he likes the idea of 500 more jobs coming to the city and asked if solar panels could be added to the project, perhaps as a solar car port, and art work in the area facing the light rail”. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve the Jan. 13, 2020 meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3c. City council meeting minutes of Jan. 21, 2020 Councilmember Kraft noted in the League of MN Cities discussion it should read, “…Wiersum added climate change was a specific topic at the recent league board retreat in the fall and was put on their to do list.” Councilmember Kraft also noted in the Local Options Sales Tax discussion it should read, “…however, this is a complex issue. He wants to more thoroughly understand any negative impacts to business sales by implementing a sales tax. Sales taxes are more regressive. He stated he is interested in the overall tax burden to city residents and will oppose moving forward on this at this time.” Councilmember Rog noted on page 10, it should read “…she added since municipalities across the state will be experiencing a shortage of funds, a better strategy would be to lobby the legislature for dedicated funds” rather than “implement a local sales tax which removes the state from what it is obligated to provide.” It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the Jan. 21, 2020 meeting minutes as amended The motion passed 7-0. 3d. Special study session meeting minutes of Feb. 3, 2020 It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the Feb. 3, 2020 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 20-023 to recognize Firefighter Bill Ryan and Resolution No. 20-024 to recognize Office Assistant Jean Zimmerman for their years of service. 4b. Approve an extension until February 18, 2021 for SLP Park Ventures to record the final plat for Platia Place. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 20-025 approving acceptance of a $50 donation from Jill Marks for the Westwood Hills Nature Center Be the Light Winter Solstice Walk, $300 donation from Joseph and Kristine Cook for the purchase of a memorial tree to be planted in Wolfe Park honoring Bev and Jerry Slavin and $2,500 donation from Minnesota Society of Arboriculture for Jim Vaughan to attend the 2020 International Society of Arboriculture Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 4d. Approve replacement of 2003 Sterling L8500 Dump Truck. 4e. Approve the settlement agreement between the city and MSP Apartment, LLC for parcel 14, located in the northwest quadrant of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue and directs city manager and city attorney to execute terms of agreement. 4f. Approve the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) Use Guide to direct the operation and use of the AHTF. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 20-026 accepting donation to the fire department from Park Coin for fire prevention programs and equipment. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 20-027 approving labor agreement between the city and the dispatcher employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2021. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 20-028 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,370.74 for the annual sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation project with Insituform Technologies - city contract No. 08-19. 4j. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Nov. 20, 2019. 4k. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Dec. 4, 2019. 4l. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Dec. 18, 2019. 4m. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Jan. 8, 2020. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, 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 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 6a. Public hearing to consider allocation of 2020 Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds Resolution No. 20-029 Ms. Olson presented the staff report. She stated the proposed 2020 allocation from Hennepin County is estimated to be $147,050. She noted the proposed use of the CDBG funds reflect the city’s priorities to preserve existing housing and increase affordable home ownership opportunities in St. Louis Park. The proposed allocation for 2020 includes two programs, $117,050 for the low-income deferred loan program and $30,000 for the “Homes within Reach” program. Councilmember Rog questioned what STEP’s application was for that council supported. Ms. Olson stated that was part of the Hennepin County consolidated RFP that would be used to support emergency assistance. Ms. Harris asked why the proposed allocation for 2020 was about $10,000 less than the 2019 allocation. Ms. Olson stated the allocation is based on a formula used by Hennepin County which also factors in things such as population, need, federal funding and poverty rates. Councilmember Mohamed questioned how someone could apply for the deferred loan program. Ms. Olson stated homeowners can contact Hennepin County to apply and the information is also on the city’s website. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Mavity stated the CDBG programs are exactly the types of things the city needs to continue to support community development and housing infrastructure. She noted the amount of funding received isn’t enough to address the need and she is glad the city will be supplementing the work being done with community development. Councilmember Mohamed stated this is a generous program and urged folks to apply for these loans to help improve their homes. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 20-029 approving proposed use of 2020 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and authorize execution of sub- recipient agreement with Hennepin County and third-party agreements. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Oak Park Village Apartments – private activity revenue bonds Resolution No. 20-030 Mr. Simon presented the staff report. He stated the request is for private activity revenue bonds to acquire and rehabilitate the property known as Oak Park Village apartments. He noted the project budget for rehabilitation work is approximately City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 $41,000 per unit. Upon closing, the owner intends to renew the existing section 8 contract for an additional 20 years. He added the bonds will not impact the city’s debt capacity or obligate the city to pay for the bonds in any way. Councilmember Kraft questioned if Vitus is the current owner of the property. Brian Maloney, Vitus, stated they are the current owner of the property. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Hussein Abdi asked what the benefits of the funding would be to the residents. The project owner, Brian Maloney with Vitus, stated the benefits will be new playground equipment, new appliances in all the units, and overall updates to the building, including new siding, to make it a better and safer place to live. Fatuma Irshat, 7229 Oak Park Village, asked what will be included in this project. She stated as tenants, they want to provide input on the project. Mr. Simon read the scope of work provided by Vitus stating the rehabilitation will include replacement of windows, siding, cabinets, high efficiency appliance and lighting, painting the floors, playground, raised beds for gardens, and curb cuts for parking. Ms. Irshat asked if the tenants will be included in the conversation, and what is the process for being involved in that. Councilmember Harris stated in a tenant meeting last fall with Vitus, there was discussion about specific improvements and a request for weekly communications with the residents during the construction process so there could be clarity around timelines and schedules related to specific units. Mr. Maloney stated the timeline is still dependent on the finalization of funding. He noted the project is anticipated to start in the spring. He explained once an exact start date is known that will be immediately communicated to the tenants and prior to any work beginning on a specific unit, 30-day notice will be given that will detail the work that will be done. Councilmember Mohamed asked who residents can talk to about the project and where they can find information about the project. Mr. Maloney stated the property management company has a general scope of work that can be shared with tenants now upon request and once a detailed scope of work is finalized for each unit, it will be shared with the tenants. Councilmember Mohamed asked about the property owner’s commitment to renewing the section 8 contract and questions if the housing will remain affordable. Mr. Maloney stated as a part of the financing package for the project they are committing to a new 20-year section 8 contract and a 30-year affordability requirement through MN Housing. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Councilmember Mohamed asked if there would be any changes to the existing parking. Mr. Maloney stated there will be no parking changes and there will be over 100 parking spots, which equates to slightly more than one spot per unit. Councilmember Rog asked what the process is for residents to provide feedback on the improvements they feel are important. Mr. Maloney stated there was a meeting in October with the tenants to discuss a preliminary scope of work and get a sense for what the residents would like to see at the property. He noted at that meeting the developer also discussed which improvements would be feasible and prioritized within the scope of the project and the funding available. Councilmember Rog asked for more interaction with residents as decisions are made around priority funding. Saharla Salah, 7265 Oak Park Village, stated at the October meeting, the owners stated there will be another meeting in February and so far, it has not happened. Mr. Maloney stated that meeting will be held prior to the start of construction, once the financing is finalized. He noted the meeting date will be communicated to residents once scheduled. Mr. Abdi asked if there will be any rent increases after the project is completed. Mr. Maloney stated tenants will continue to pay one-third of their income in rent, as is required under the terms of section 8. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Harris stated she has heard the request for a community center from tenants and has not forgotten about it. She is currently looking for funding and the owners have also heard this request. However, the owners have stated they are focused first on bringing the complex up to a better standard of living, including energy efficient improvements. She added if funding becomes available in the future, she will be in touch with residents. Councilmember Mavity thanked the residents for coming forward today. She stated there have been several projects in St. Louis Park with poor communication, so it is important that Vitus continues clear and ongoing communication with residents. She added the most important part of this project is that the Section 8 federal subsidies would otherwise expire and leave the building, unless this owner refinanced the property and made a new commitment to meet section 8 and affordability requirements. So, 100 affordable units are being preserved in this community as a result of this project. Councilmember Kraft reiterated communication with residents is very important. He added Vitus seems to want to communicate as the project is finalized but asked that they rethink their strategy and communicate with residents on an ongoing basis. He stated preserving the affordability for 30 years is wonderful, but he also wants to highlight the owners’ commitment to investing in energy efficiency improvements that will lower the monthly utility bills. He noted that combination story can be incredibly powerful and he is very interested if this facility will fall under the city’s new City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 benchmarking ordinance that will require public reporting of energy usage, and even if it doesn’t he would ask that the owners consider creating a partnership with the city to compare what the energy usage was prior to the improvements and what it is after the improvements are completed. He asked if the property owners have also considered the installation of solar panels as another way of lowering long-term energy costs. Councilmember Mohamed stated overall, she wants to highlight the effort to improve the quality of life for residents of the property while being able to maintain the section 8 housing, and she is proud that this project will do that. She added communication is important with residents on an ongoing basis, adding that sometimes there is a language barrier and she hopes the property owner and management will considered that as well. Councilmember Brausen stated he lived in the Oak Park Village in the 1990’s and is very interested in the project. He stated he is happy to support the project and agreed that communication with the tenants is paramount as well as involving them in the process. Councilmember Rog asked if the staff report the council received can go to the tenants so they can see some the project details. She indicated she appreciates keeping this as affordable, section 8 housing that also offers 2- and 3-bedroom units, which are not found in other areas of the city. She noted for many people, this is their forever home, and they will live at the property for many years. She stated as this group of residents works to keep their community strong, she would urge the property owners to look for ways to provide a community room for residents in the future. It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 20-030 authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of multifamily housing revenue obligations for the benefit of Oak Park Village Partners, LP and authorizing the execution and delivery of documents related thereto. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. First Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control Mr. Manibog presented the staff report and reviewed the traffic committee’s recommendation. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve first reading of the ordinance and set second reading for March 2, 2020. The motion passed 7-0. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 10 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 6d. Southeast area bikeway project Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report. He noted that council was provided with a supplementary packet of public comments that had been received by staff within the last couple days, after the staff report for the public hearing was provided to the council. Mr. Sullivan reviewed the history of Connect the Park and the purpose to develop a system of bikeways, sidewalks and trails that provide local and regional connectivity, improve safety and accessibility, and enhance overall community livability. He stated during the 2007 Vision St. Louis Park process, the community provided input that better and more sidewalks, trails, and bike facilities was important. Council heard that feedback and from that, an active living sidewalk and trails plan was developed. In 2013 the city council approved a Connect the Park capital improvement plan that was focused on a 10-year strategy to identify where bike facilities may be located and what they might look like, recognizing the need for continued public engagement and design work. The Vision 3.0 process and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the council and community support for a robust system of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that promote connectivity and support climate action initiatives that recognize the need to prioritize other sources of mobility in the community besides vehicles. Mr. Sullivan reviewed the objectives for this specific project, which is a part of the overall Connect the Park plan, and the desire of the council to meet their strategic priorities and follow the modal priorities outlined in the comprehensive plan. He noted in addition to the council priorities and policy directives, the selection and design considerations for the project also take into account best practices of the industry, state rules and guidelines, route characteristics, and community feedback. He added the public process related to this project began in December of 2017 to gather feedback and modify some of the alignments as the design has progressed. Mr. Sullivan stated one of the biggest challenges is identifying route characteristics and using that information to determine what the best bike facility will be for each of the five segments included in the project spanning 1.72 miles of bikeways. He noted characteristics such as volume and speed of traffic, width of roadway, parking, trees, sidewalks, driveways, and community connections all factor into the designs proposed for each segment. Mr. Sullivan provided an overview of the proposed design for each of the five segments and reviewed some of the key features and considerations that factored into the proposed design. He clarified that no changes to crosswalks were proposed for the Wooddale Avenue segment from 42nd ½ Street to 44th Street and, because of the desire to not widen the road in this area, 63 on-street parking spaces would need to be removed. Through the community engagement process the neighborhood provided feedback that the loss of on-street parking was a concern. Staff looked at ways to preserve on-street parking and because of the tree-lined corridor and the existing width of the roadway, staff proposed the construction of five (5) parking bays along the corridor to provide 13 parking stalls. The construction of the parking bays would require the removal of ten trees along the corridor, ranging in size and species. He reviewed the proposed project timeline and noted the council would not take action on the item at the meeting tonight. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 11 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Councilmember Mavity asked for clarification on some the specific project details. She referenced the petition the council received from the Save our Neighborhood group and asked how many trees were proposed to be removed along the Wooddale segment. Mr. Sullivan stated 10 trees were proposed to be removed and those trees were selected in conjunction with the city forester to limit the removal, as much as possible, to smaller, less mature trees. Councilmember Mavity stated the neighbors along the Wooddale segment are also very concerned about the potential removal of four (4) crosswalks in the area and asked staff to clarify the plan related to crosswalks in the Wooddale segment. Mr. Sullivan stated there are no crosswalks being removed in the project area. He noted at 42 ½ Street, one of the things proposed is a transition from an on-street bike lane to a share the road facility at the three-legged intersection. The proposal is to add green cross-bike striping that would help to align bikers and alert drivers to where bicyclists would and should be. Councilmember Mavity asked about the crosswalk area near Susan Lindgren that does not currently align with the street and whether or not any modifications were proposed to improve that area and make it safer for kids walking to school. Mr. Sullivan stated staff has proposed moving the last 30-50 feet of the trail to the South, so it better aligns with the stop sign and the crosswalk location. Councilmember Mavity questioned if state law currently allows bikes on any road to take up as much of that roadway as they need to, similar to what vehicles are allowed to do. Mr. Manibog stated this is correct. A bike can take the lane on any roadway, except a highway. Councilmember Mavity questioned why the city is doing this project if the “share the road” concept is essentially state law. Mr. Manibog explained the purpose of these types of project is to heighten awareness of other modes of transportation on the road and to increase safety for all users – whether that is dedicating space for both vehicle lanes and bike lanes, or in the case of share the road designs, general awareness through signs and striping of those users. Councilmember Mavity noted the petition references that the project will cost taxpayers $425,000 and she clarified that the cost referenced is for 1.7 miles of bikeways, not just the Wooddale segment. Mr. Sullivan stated this is correct. Councilmember Mavity stated the 1.7-mile corridor includes many different recommendations for the design of the bike facilities in each segment. She asked staff to expand on how the different characteristics along the corridor impacted the design recommendations and how they determined what type of design would be best for biker safety along each segment. Mr. Sullivan stated as traffic volumes and speeds increase, there is a need for greater protection for a bicyclist from an automobile. On a segment such as Wooddale, with a higher volume of cars and relatively higher average speeds (~32 mph), that is when you need to transition into dedicated lanes (as proposed) or buffered bike lanes, for added protection and so all users understand the expectations for how to manage travel along the corridor. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 12 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Councilmember Mavity asked if a stop sign at Morningside Avenue would be a helpful addition to the corridor for safety. Mr. Sullivan stated staff recommends waiting until the spring to further study and collect data related to how pedestrians and vehicles navigate the intersection. He noted the preliminary analysis indicates that the intersection doesn’t meet the current criteria for an all-way stop, but a final determination has not been made pending further analysis. Councilmember Kraft asked as part of this project, if there are any planned changes to current road classifications. Mr. Sullivan stated there are no changes proposed to current classifications with this project. Councilmember Brausen asked if the designation as a major collector is based on current traffic volumes. Mr. Sullivan stated yes, noting this is a highly desirable north- south route through the community and there are no other parallel routes to it, so higher traffic volumes are experienced. Councilmember Brausen clarified that whether or not a bikeway exists along Wooddale the road designation would not change because it is based on existing traffic volumes. Mr. Sullivan stated that is correct. Councilmember Harris asked about continuity of markings and asked staff to explain the reasoning behind the various types of markings that are proposed, particularly for the Wooddale segment. Mr. Sullivan stated on the northern portion of the segment, near Susan Lindgren, the proposed markings will include on-street bike facility markings with chevrons and off-street signage notifying users that they should expect to see bikers in the area. Moving South onto Wooddale, there will be a transition to on-street, 6-8” wide longitudinal white stripes designating bike lanes. Councilmember Harris asked why different markings are proposed within the segment. Mr. Manibog stated different road characteristics within the segment result in the different markings. He noted some of those characteristics includes traffic volumes and speeds. Councilmember Rog asked staff how drivers will be educated on these advisory bike lanes. Mr. Sullivan stated staff will look at how other communities have educated the public and learn from them. He noted staff plans to install signage for both bikers and motorists, and to have a very public presence in the community through multiple outlets including cable television, electronic signage, YouTube videos, social media, website, and print materials to help the public learn how to navigate the new bike facilities. Councilmember Mohamed questioned what would happen if the project was not approved. Mr. Sullivan stated staff would follow the directives set forth by the council on next steps. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Mayor Spano stated the council was provided with written comments from the public who were not able to be at the meeting and those will be added into the public record. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 13 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Ryan Bell, 4328 W. 43rd ½ St., stated the current proposal for the Wooddale segment does not serve the city’s goals of improving safety for bikers. He noted he has always found Wooddale to be one of the safer places to bike. However, he does feel that improvements should be made to add this street and the southeast corner of the city to the Connect the Park system. Removing road striping for cars and replacing it with street signage and on-street markings for bikers would be a good first step. Increasing, improving, and modernizing crosswalks would also be a good measure to implement. A share-the-road plan increases the awareness of drivers to the presence of bikers and will help reduce traffic speeds. He added the city’s proposal for this segment does not prioritize biking and will not be safe for bikers. He encouraged council to support share- the-road options for the Browndale neighborhood. Ryan Alberstein, 4820 Park Commons Drive, stated the area at Quentin and Park Commons Drive has become a more dangerous intersection due to Fresh Thyme, the lack of a stop sign from Quentin to Park Commons Drive, and the driveway to the Fresh Thyme parking lot that is less than fifty feet from the intersection. He stated there is a lot of confusion between pedestrians, bikers, and vehicles in the area. He noted there is angled parking at Fresh Thyme and asked what will be done to ensure bike safety in that corridor. He also questioned where the land was coming from to implement the bike and pedestrian path on the north side of Park Commons Drive. Lynn Wagner, 4506 Wooddale Ave., commented that the proposal for the Wooddale segment does not make financial sense and will widen a historic and quiet section of a residential street, thereby increasing traffic speeds. She stated the residents’ quality of life will be diminished due to the loss of mature trees and on-street parking. She added the proposed plan does not promote biker safety. She felt a safer and less expensive alternative would be a share-the-road plan to encourage biking in the neighborhood. She asked the council to listen to the residents and vote against the proposed plan for the Wooddale segment. Mary Ponthan, 4354 Wooddale Ave., stated she has lived in her home since 1984 and the average age of residents in the Wooddale area is 64 years old. She stated her husband has recently been diagnosed with a condition that will require home care. She expressed concerns about the loss of on-street parking and the impact it will have on her ability to host family events. She stated when she asked where visitors would park if the proposed plan was approved, she was told guests can take an Uber or she can move. She added all of this inconvenience for the residents along Wooddale is to accommodate 5 bikers per day. She noted nobody wants to eliminate biking on Wooddale but would like the council to look at the plan more thoroughly and consider alternatives, such as a pilot program. Debra Fisher Goldstein, 4340 Wooddale Ave., stated she wants St. Louis Park to be a leader in bike and pedestrian safety and suggested making the Wooddale segment a pilot program to find a solution that will work and be safe. She asked for collaborative dialogue with bikers to find alternatives. She stated the “interested but concerned” cyclists do not feel comfortable with bike lanes, may bike on sidewalks even if bike lanes are provided, and may not bike if bike facilities do not meet their needs for perceived City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 14 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 comfort. She added that the interested but concerned biker does not require the most direct route. They prefer the safest and most comfortable route. She stated the target audience would not bike on Wooddale under the proposed plan. She added an unprotected, striped bike lane provides a false sense of security and is not a safe option on Wooddale due to traffic speeds. She reiterated the proposed plan for the Wooddale segment is not the safest option and the traffic volume on Wooddale warrants a share- the-road bike facility. Harvey Goldstein, 4340 Wooddale Ave., stated he is a confident recreational cyclist, who bikes approximately 2,000 miles each year. He stated biking on Wooddale Avenue is unpredictable due to people’s driving habits and painting a white line on the road to confine a biker will not prevent odd things from happening, especially with the service and delivery vehicles that travel along Wooddale and will block the bike lane. He is thankful for the existing wide sidewalks and thinks Wooddale Avenue would be best served by a clearly marked, share-the-road facility similar to what was done on 44th Street. He questioned why this bike lane had to be located along these particular 2.5 blocks along Wooddale. He invited Mayor Spano and Councilmember Brausen to walk on the street and stand where the bike lane is proposed to be located. He reiterated his fears for biker safety on Wooddale Avenue. Carolyn Rusch, 4328 W. 43 ½ St., stated the bike plan proposed for the Wooddale segment was not brought to resident’s attention until May of 2019, and by that time the plan for parking bays had already been implemented. She believes the city is not open to alternative ideas for this segment of the project. She added the residents in the area are generally older and the proposed plan along Wooddale will make bikers uncomfortable because of the designated bike lane and traffic speeds. She stated the residents in the area rely on cars for their transportation needs and parking is vital. She asked the council to not approve the project as proposed with the parking bays and instead consider a pilot program on Wooddale and Browndale Avenues using share-the- road facilities. Ed Idzorek, 4335 Wooddale Ave., is a lifelong bicyclist and has lived on Wooddale Avenue for 33 years. He noted he is also a licensed professional engineer who has worked in the areas of traffic and transportation. He stated he agrees with the transportation goals and priorities outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He noted he also agrees with providing a safe bike network that will attract “interested but concerned” bicyclists. He stated the proposal for striped bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue will not attract the “interested but concerned” bicyclist. The residents of the Browndale neighborhood would like to propose a pilot program for the Wooddale segment of the project that recognizes the dispersed origins and destinations of bicyclists in the neighborhood. The Browndale, Wooddale, Grimes, Joppa corridors could all be designated as share-the-road facilities and would provide a more attractive facility for the highly confident and confident bicyclist. He stated the “interested but concerned” bicyclist is already served by the 6-foot wide parallel sidewalks that exist along Wooddale Avenue. He proposed the existing sidewalks become designated as shared-use trails. He noted the mailings for the second and third open houses related to the project included the Browndale and Joppa corridors as future bikeways. He asked City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 15 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 the council to not approve the plan for the Wooddale segment as proposed because it fails to attract the targeted bicyclists, it is very expensive, and has unacceptable environmental and livability impacts. Eric Curran-Bakken, 4333 Wooddale Ave., stated he has lived in the area for 30 years. He is an avid biker and used Wooddale Avenue to bike to his job when he worked in the city. He stated the only crash he ever had was on Wooddale Avenue as it is not a safe road for bicyclists. He noted his main concern related to the Wooddale segment is that the proposal will effectively widen the road and increase traffic speeds as a result. He asked for council to consider a pilot project for a share-the-road bike facility on Wooddale and to also include Browndale and Joppa in the pilot. He feels the Wooddale segment of the project is very expensive and will be even more costly if there is a mistake. Monika Weeks, 4238 Wooddale Ave., stated she is primarily concerned about safety. She explained the traffic speeds on Wooddale Avenue have increased over the years, and by removing trees and parking, it will change the character of the neighborhood. She feels passionate about this project and the residents feel they are not being heard. She asked the council to consider alternatives. Sue Spraguer, 4250 Wooddale Ave. S., stated she would like the council to amend the proposed plan for the Wooddale segment. She expressed admiration for cyclists who ride throughout the year, noting those types of riders are the minority. She believes most bicyclists fall into the “interested but concerned” category and ride primarily where they feel safe - on sidewalks or trails. They take in the landscape, greet neighbors, and stop to shop or eat along the way. She asked who the city is targeting with the proposed plan and questioned if it makes sense to remove trees and street parking for a two-block stretch that will serve the minority of bikers who would utilize the bikeway. She feels the plan for the Wooddale segment does not make sense and asked the council to consider alternatives. Reed Heffelfinger, 4375 Glen Place, stated she has lived in her home for 32 years. She stated simplicity is the best option and the current system doesn’t seem to be broken, so it is unclear what the city is trying to fix. She asked the council to vote against the Wooddale segment of the project. Marianne Herrmann, 4386 Wooddale Ave., thanked Councilmembers Mohamed, Harris and Kraft for walking along Wooddale Avenue with residents, listening to their concerns, and experiencing the situation firsthand. She invited Mayor Spano and Councilmember Brausen to do the same. She stated one matter of grave concern with the proposed plan relates to the safety of bikers, pedestrians and children. She explained her daughter was hit by a car at the corner of 44th and Wooddale Avenue, thankfully not seriously injured; however, she was traumatized for years after the accident and was terrified to cross the street. After this accident, crosswalks were added at the intersection by St. Louis Park and Edina after her daughter and husband advocated to both city councils for safety measures at the intersection. She noted in opposition of the proposed plan, the residents of Wooddale have become worked to learn more about pedestrian and bicycle City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 16 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 safety, spending much of their time researching the subject, consulting traffic and transportation experts, and developing alternative proposals. The residents do not feel the proposed plan is based on the most authoritative research such as NTSB, and think it fails to consider the high density of driveways along Wooddale Avenue (38) which create conflict points that intersect with the designated bike lane. She stated these circumstances alone should disqualify the proposed plan because of the hazards created for all cyclists. She asked the council to prioritize safety and vote no on the proposed plan for the Wooddale segment or, at the very least, establish a 2-year pilot program to study the effects of a share-the-road design and adjust the plan to be in line with the latest safety research. JC Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale Ave., stated he has lived in his home for 32 years and also serves on the city’s charter commission. He explained sometimes, despite our efforts, sometimes people get things wrong. The residents of the neighborhood attended this meeting to stop the proposed plan for the Wooddale Avenue segment because it is simply wrong and misses the mark. He stated the current plan does not fit the intended purposes, does not fit the target cyclist, is overly costly, does not follow the best safety practices, does not conform to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, will reduce property values and will result in bodily injury if implemented as proposed. He noted when his daughter was struck by a car on Wooddale Avenue he and his family had to fight for safety on that street and he continues to do so now. He added this is a car- first plan, masquerading as a bike plan because the proposal does not attempt to reduce the posted speeds, or the traffic volumes and bike and pedestrian safety will be compromised as a result. He stated Wooddale is a local, residential street with 38 driveways and four intersections along 2 ½ blocks and the residents do not want this project because of the associated safety concerns. He added the residents would prefer a pilot project that would turn Wooddale, Browndale, Grimes and Joppa into share-the- road facilities. He asked the council to not approve the plan as proposed. Paul Baudhuin, 2750 Idaho Ave., stated he is an avid cyclist who heavily uses bike lanes and infrastructure and is a fierce advocate for it wherever he can find it. He explained he is concerned about the Wooddale Avenue segment and the loss of 10 trees along the corridor. He stated Wooddale Avenue feels safer now than it would with the proposed bike lane, adding the former bike lane on Wooddale Avenue in Edina, was a deathtrap. He asked the council to try a share-the-road program. He thanked the council for working on this project, providing access to 44th and France for families, and encouraged the council to work further with Edina to find a safe solution for this proposal. Bryan Schmidt, 4301 Branson St., Edina, stated he spends quite a bit of time driving or biking down Wooddale Avenue. He explained he is not a fan of the proposed plan or a share-the-road option. He is concerned about vehicles injuring pedestrians and cyclists and does not think shared roads are the solution either when vehicles don’t even follow the posted speed limits along Wooddale. He added the bike lanes should have bollards or a curb for biker’s protection. He would be more in favor of making the street safer through design to slow down traffic such as narrowing the street along with no parking. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 17 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 John Curren, 4370 Wooddale Ave., stated he has lived here for over 34 years. He stated responses to his concerns regarding the proposed plan from the city are that they can’t make everyone happy. He questioned who would be made happy by the proposed plan. He noted the majority of the neighbors along Wooddale are vehemently opposed to this project, taxpayers won’t be happy with the cost, and pedestrians won’t be safe with the reduction of existing traffic-calming features and no barrier between the street and the sidewalk. He stated the cyclists should be the happiest, but they will also seek out the best routes for themselves and he does not think Wooddale will be the best route. He added that Browndale, Grimes, and Joppa are all good alternative routes and will be the ones that bikers will choose because of the significantly lower volumes of traffic. He stated he understands that not every plan can appease everyone, but he still doesn’t understand who will be happy with this proposal because it harms the council’s constituents. He encouraged the council to consider a less intrusive option. Brenda Rosenhamer, 4262 Wooddale Ave., stated she has lived there for 20 years. She stated she believes the future of biking is safety through design of the roads so that all users of the corridor will be comfortable and safe. She added she feels the city should be following the recommendations of the NTSB, published in November 2019 study that was commissioned as a result of an uptick in biking fatalities. She is concerned that the studies used by the city to develop the proposed plan are not based on bike-specific safety and are not progressive. She stated the residents asked for traffic calming features, lower road volumes, and reduced speed as recommended by NTSB and FHWA, and the proposed plan should have been disqualified because it does not recognize those standards that are specific to bike safety. Jon Erickson, 4370 Glen Place, stated he opposes the proposed plan for the Wooddale Avenue segment. He stated there is a better plan available that would utilize an existing bikeway to connect to 44th Avenue and would meet all of the goals outlined in the Connect the Park plan related to safety and the prioritization of bikes and pedestrians. He recommended the council not approve the proposed plan and look at an alternative. Jane Haakenstad, 4380 Wooddale Ave., stated she is a recreational cyclist and finds the inconsistency in bike lane markings between segments confusing. She also noted the costs of the project are too high. She explained livability requires access to residential properties. She stated many of the driveways along Wooddale are not very long and are not accessible by some vehicles including delivery and construction vehicles, which all need access to the homes they are serving. She noted that busy streets like France and Xerxes Avenues still provide parking on at least one side of the street. The current plan with parking bays does not serve the residents well and will negatively impact the elderly and safety of children. She stated this plan ignores livability and better options exist. Mike Daly, 2749 Brunswick Ave., stated cyclists, according to the State of Minnesota, must follow the same rules of the road as vehicles. Helen Hughes, 4272 Wooddale Ave., has lived here more than 34 years, which she chose because of schools, location, and city government. She added she has sold homes in this City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 18 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 area as well and is opposed to this plan because of the tree removal and parking bays installed along Wooddale. She does agree with the goal to increase commuter biking and use of public transportation. She stated the loss of property value due to diminished curb appeal will be extreme. She asked the council to not approve the proposed plan. Stephanie Schwartz, 4378 Dart Ave., stated she is the block captain on the street. She stated she is concerned that the proposed plan will make Wooddale Avenue less safe because the bike only lane and parking bays will give the perception of a wider street that will result in drivers going faster. She stated she routinely sees drivers on Wooddale not following posted speed limits and ignoring stop signs and pedestrians in crosswalks. She noted she is also concerned about the cost of the proposed plan for the Wooddale segment and the removal of trees along the corridor. She added this proposal impacts everyone in the Browndale neighborhood, and if people cannot park on Wooddale Avenue, they will park on Dart Avenue. She asked the council to listen to their voices and consider the impact of the proposed plan on all residents in the area. Daniel Bell, 4328 W. 43 ½ St., stated the proposed plan on Wooddale Avenue increases the amount of pavement which will increase stormwater run-off, and further exacerbate existing problems with flooding. He added the city should be planning for the future and increased precipitation as a result of climate change and do everything possible to reduce stormwater run-off. He encouraged the city council to reject the proposal and implement a share-the-road pilot program for bikeways on Wooddale and Browndale. Jim Jerney, 4269 Wooddale Ave., stated he commutes downtown and uses the Bryant Avenue bike boulevard, a share-the-road facility. The worst portion of the commute is a stretch in which he has to use a designate lane that is between parked cars and moving traffic. He stated before voting for the plan, councilmembers should bicycle along that stretch in Minneapolis so they can experience how unsafe it is. Matt Wandzel, 2832 Georgia Ave., stated he is a frequent cyclist and supports the Connect the Park initiatives in the city to provide more access and safe options for cyclists and commuters in general. He noted many people will soon be going through the corridor to access the light rail station and other commuter facilities and he supports the proposed plan. Ron Hobson, 4156 Alabama Ave., stated overall, he is a proponent of the Connect the Park plan and the idea of creating north-south and east-west connections the community. He explained he would like to see intuitive routes so that he knows where he is going. He stated the other benefit of the north-south route is that it has a destination, the Rec Center. He added he is a fan of the proposed designated bike lane on Wooddale Avenue, especially because of the boundary/guide it provides for kids. Brandon Eddy, 3274 Blackstone Ave., stated he moved to St. Louis Park because of the Connect the Park program. He bikes 3,000-4,000 miles per year and while he recognizes that the Connect the Park plan is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and a major reason why younger people choose to live in the community. He added he has three children and is excited by the access and connections the new routes in the City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 19 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 proposed plan will provide to desirable destinations. He gave kudos to staff for their work on the Connect the Park system and asked people to realize that the bikeways are needed to provide connections in the community, and this is a step in the right direction. Marc Berg, 2913 Webster Ave. S., stated he is in favor of the plan. He noted he has biked for 40 years and typically avoids this area when biking because of the higher speeds and traffic volumes on the road. He is in favor of the striped bike lane on this segment of Wooddale Avenue, as both cars and bikers will have a designated space, and this is a safer alternative with a traffic calming effect. Al Wallin, 4258 Wooddale Ave., stated he has lived in his home for 56 years. Yesterday he counted 29 cars going by his house in the span of 8 minutes. He stated the traffic volume is too high on Wooddale for a bike lane and it isn’t safe for cyclists. Jim Kramer, 4346 Wooddale Ave., echoed all the comments previously made by his neighbors. He stated the people who live on Wooddale Avenue know the characteristics of the area better than anyone else and the impacts that will be felt if the proposed plan is approved. He added that barriers are needed, but staff said it was not feasible or cost effective due to the existing width of the street. He stated designated lanes will not be safe on Wooddale and if there is a serious accident, the neighbors will say, ‘we told you so and you turned a blind eye.’ He asked the council to find a different route, like Joppa, that goes straight up to the Rec Center. He stated he is opposed to the plan for Wooddale Avenue and asked the council to reject it. Tara Sorrud stated her parents live at 4255 Wooddale Ave., she visits frequently, and if she does not have a safe place to park, that will be a barrier to her visiting. She encouraged the council to find an alternative plan. Marilyn Tursich, 4017 Wooddale Ave. S., stated it is true that the parking along Wooddale does naturally slow traffic through the area. She noted the project is creating a parking plan that will limit residents at times when they need parking for their families. She added this is not just about St. Louis Park, it also impacts surrounding cities, noting that a share-the-road plan has worked in Edina. She stated this evening, she heard the council tell residents of the Oak Park Village project that they are heard, and the city will communicate with them. She stated she would like the same treatment for residents on Wooddale concerning this project. Eric Klingbeil, 2601 Hampshire Ave. S., stated he is a civil engineer. He likes Connect the Park program and is the primary reason why he has stayed in St. Louis Park. He stated this project will bring the city closer to a complete bike network build-out. He encouraged the council not to get distracted by those who oppose one segment of a larger system that is a part of a vision for the entire city. He stated this project is a 1.7 miles segment within a 30-mile bikeway the city is trying to provide for all residents. He stated bike lanes don’t endanger bikers, they make roads safer. He felt that on Wooddale Avenue, bike lanes are safer and asked the council to approve the project as City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 20 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 recommended and move closer to a complete biking system and help prioritize biking over driving. Michael Dungan, 4216 Wooddale Ave. S., stated he appreciated all the opinions and people giving their perspectives. He wants to see safe streets and noted this is a concern on Wooddale Avenue. He is concerned about folks being discriminated against because of their age which is not appropriate, noting the main concern should be the safety of everyone along the corridor. Julie Idzorek, 4335 Wooddale Ave., stated she is most concerned about losing the canopy of trees on the street and about losing parking along the street because she often has groups of visitors to her home. Bruce Trapp, 4350 Wooddale Ave., stated he has lived here for over 40 years. He stated at the neighborhood meeting, the bikers did not want to detour and wanted a more direct route. He asked why the residents of Wooddale Avenue have to ‘take a bullet’ for the rest of the community, noting they are losing trees and being asked to disrupt their way of life. Karen Rex, 4371 Dart Ave., stated she feels the whole council has missed part of the point. She stated she supports biking, maintaining trees, and providing sidewalks, but there are other people impacted by this project on 44th Street. She is concerned that when people can’t park on Wooddale, they will park on 44th Street creating an unsafe condition for those who already have difficulty pulling out of their driveway. Matt Spraguer, 4250 Wooddale Ave., stated he has flooding concerns related to increased water runoff. He added he already has issues with flooding in his back yard with any major rainfall, it becomes a lake. He is concerned about adding any hard surface to the street because of the increased runoff that will cause. JC Beckstrand placed into the public record the petition from residents. He noted the information referenced in the petition was based upon the information that was produced by staff for the December 3, 2019 listening session. He stated the council has heard from the residents along Wooddale and they are very proud of their time in the community. He added if the project moves forward the residents fear it will damage the characteristics that make the neighborhood such a special place to live. He thanked the council for their time and encouraged all councilmembers to visit the area. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Council will take final action on this project at the March 2, 2020 meeting. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items - none 9. Communications City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 21 Title: City council meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2020 Councilmember Harris stated there is a free health fair on Feb. 22 at the Middle School at 11 a.m. and noted there is more information on the city website. All are welcome. Councilmember Rog noted the Wish Cycling Workshop on Thurs., Feb. 27, and sign up is available on the city website. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 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 February 22, through March 27, 2020. 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 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 604.45 EARL F ANDERSEN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 604.45 100.00 ROBERT BEALKE INDUSTRIES HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 650.00 2,254.85ACE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,254.85 739.00ACME TOOLS FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 739.00 346.50ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS OPERATIONS TRAINING 346.50 14,400.00ACTIVE NETWORK LLC EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 14,400.00 5,106.00AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC.FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 851.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 851.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 851.00SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 851.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,510.00 250.00ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 108.00ALCO SERVICE & SUPPLY CO.PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 108.00 100.00ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGS 100.00 4,736.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,736.00 2,450.98ALLSTREAMIT G & A TELEPHONE 2,450.98 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 122.91AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 44.97CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 167.88 299.60AMERICAN FLAGPOLE & FLAG CO PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 299.60 221.89AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SERVICES OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS 221.89 330.00ANDERSON BRYCE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 330.00 1,000.00ANDERSON RACE MANAGEMENT SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 96.09ANGEL KATIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 96.09 603.75ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 603.75 88.46ARNASON JOEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 88.46 157.30ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 157.30 1,038.37ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS 1,038.37 66.51AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 66.51 162.50ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 162.50 51.80AUTO PLUS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 51.80 643.58AVI SYSTEMS CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 643.58 71.00AXNER REBECCA DANCE REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 71.00 377.30AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 9,811.10POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 107,532.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 117,720.40 210,878.07B&D PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC.RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210,878.07 3,100.00BADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET GENERAL 3,100.00 240.00BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 240.00 48.95BATTERIES PLUS BULBS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 48.95 2,380.00BCD CONSULTING GROUP HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 2,380.00 22.00BEDDAWI REEM INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 22.00 7,184.08BEDFORD TECHNOLOGY LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,184.08 63.00BERG KELLIE DANCE REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 63.00 6,669.92BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,669.92 7.99BLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 578.03PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 586.02 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 13.60BOHMANN KIRA ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 13.60 116.64BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,564.30OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,680.94 2,371.18BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,326.18MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 829.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4,526.36 80.11BREDENBERG, JASON BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES 299.11 1,000.00BROOKSIDE MINNOCO PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,000.00 150.96BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 150.96 72.11BUDISH ZACHARY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 72.11 79.20BUSINESS ESSENTIALS FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 79.20 7,584.50CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 544.50ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES 49.50CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES 4,724.05STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES 5,803.58STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 66.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 18,805.13 158.28CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 158.28 1,901.73CANON FINANCIAL IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 5 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,901.73 4,110.25CARGILL, INC.SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,110.25 4,099.06CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 4,099.06 225.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,050.00DOWN PYMT ASSISTANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 742.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 13,017.50 19,573.45CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS 3,605.04WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 255.42REILLY G & A HEATING GAS 416.16SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 1,291.10PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 177.45WESTWOOD G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 205.36NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS 6,947.31REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS 32,471.29 16,133.08CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT OTHER RETIREMENT 16,133.08 1,740.00CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES POLICE G & A TRAINING 1,740.00 311.20CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 311.20 1,461.94CHET'S SAFETY SALES INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 674.97WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 773.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 155.99REC CENTER SALARIES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 349.99REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 181.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 3,598.85 225.00CHRISTOPHER STROM ARCHITECTS MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 6 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 225.00 71.84CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 178.95FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,322.34REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 165.45REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 263.11VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,001.69 38.96CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 9.73GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 38.22ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,425.54ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 2.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 598.24ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 9.62RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A TRAINING 27.92HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 75.00HUMAN RESOURCES CONNECTION CREW 770.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 47.59HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 130.53COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 427.66COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 56.42FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 96.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 285.54FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,999.99FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 37.62POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,924.87POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 32.00POLICE G & A MOTOR FUELS 50.00POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 578.00POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 490.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 8,058.00POLICE G & A TRAINING 1,160.00POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 443.71POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 85.67POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 206.00OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES 223.23OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 32.49OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS 13.97OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 7 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,779.34OPERATIONSTRAINING 1,065.03OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 691.19BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING 75.00SUSTAINABILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 46.00ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 205.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 25.99ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 147.52SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 50.00CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 399.00CABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,519.99CABLE TV G & A MEETING EXPENSE 367.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 330.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 532.28WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 37.06SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 734.92SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,164.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 34.99ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.88SPECIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 714.76SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.22-BASKETBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.91LITTLE TOT PLAYTIME GENERAL SUPPLIES 178.00CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES 129.98PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 442.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 10.73SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.26NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING 237.54WEED CONTROL SMALL TOOLS 692.30WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,085.13REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 299.00REC CENTER BUILDING TRAINING 300.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,181.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 307.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 100.00GENERAL REPAIR TRAINING 36,708.33 2,500.00CLARENDON PROPERTIES ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 2,500.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 8 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 317.82CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 757.32OPERATIONSREPAIRS 1,075.14 128.27COLE DONALD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 128.27 16,992.41COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 16,992.41 1,334.75COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,334.75 126.18COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 106.34CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 65.40OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 314.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.47REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 641.94 1,500.00COMPTIA, INC.CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 839.20CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 839.20 1,758.99CORE & MAIN LP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,758.99 91,000.00COSTCO WHOLESALE RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 91,000.00 10,650.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,650.00 72.80CREW2BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 72.80 576.00CRF USA MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 576.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 9 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,710.00CROWD CONTROL WAREHOUSE ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,710.00 181.79CROWN MARKING INC.COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 181.79 16,000.00CSM FINANCIAL LLC ESCROWS GENERAL 16,000.00 184.19CTW GROUP, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 184.19 13.49CUB KNOLLWOOD POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 43.85POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 57.34 1,445.90CUMMINS INC REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,445.90 1,168.56CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,168.56 1,857.88CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,857.88 1,155.40CUSTOM HOSE TECH INC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,155.40 1,736.85CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,736.85 1,481.87DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 396.67REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 619.98REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 293.00REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,791.52 486.00DENESEN KEVIN BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 486.00 360.00DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 10 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 360.00 5,561.24DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 5,561.24 613,800.00DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 613,800.00 3,344.52DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 174.56COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 883.54STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,402.62 650.00DRULEY MATTHEW PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 650.00 7,228.00-EBERT CONSTRUCTION GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 144,560.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 137,332.00 779.45ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES 779.45 8,092.50EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS Dunn Brothers Coffee 1,200.00ESCROWSOPPIDAN - BALLY'S SITE 811.25ESCROWSPLACE 5,340.00ESCROWSPLATIA PLACE 2,305.00ESCROWS 3,390.002014A GO DEBT SERV G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,138.75 200.00ELECTRIC PUMP INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 645.13ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 645.13SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 645.12STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,935.38 384.96ELLANSON, LUKE POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 384.96 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 11 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 453.10EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 453.10 7,137.99ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 7,137.99 15,750.00EVERBRIDGE INC POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A TELEPHONE 15,750.00 1,500.00EVERGREEN MUSIC NETWORK, INC.LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 3,179.54FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 5.85GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,185.39 1,147.50FADDEN DEREK BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,147.50 87.03FAHEY CHRIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 87.03 50.00FANHDRICH LIVIA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 128.34FASTENAL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 283.03WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 411.37 2,898.34FASTSIGNSADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,898.34 52.64FEDEXHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 87.67POLICE G & A POSTAGE 140.31 4,247.92FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 4,247.92 30.40FERRELLGASGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 12 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 240.25REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 270.65 885.00FIELD TRAINING SOLUTIONS POLICE G & A TRAINING 885.00 1,133.63FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,133.63 489.95FIRE SAFETY USA INC OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS 489.95 42.24FISHER, KALA SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 42.24 65.00FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.00 250.47FORKLIFTS OF MN INC.PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 250.47 275.00FRAASCH KARL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00 97.80FRATTALONE'S/ST. LOUIS PARK REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.00GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.80 323.83FUN EXPRESS SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 323.83 60.00GAHN LISA ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 127.00SOCCERREFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 187.00 12,923.30GALLS, LLC - DBA UNIFORMS UNLIMITED POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 12,923.30 500.00GANGL DAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 500.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 13 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 650.00GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 3,000.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,650.00 3,945.00GELLERMAN CONSTRUCTION INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 3,945.00 5,910.00-GENERAL SHEET METAL COMPANY, LLC. GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 118,200.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 112,290.00 1.00GOLDEN VALLEY HEATING & AIR BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 66.00 253.80GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 253.80 6.02GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 34.21FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.09WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.42SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 247.92PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 142.42VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,000.08 1,244.17HAGEN, DENNIS POLICE G & A TRAINING 1,244.17 621.00HAMILTON, MIKE BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 621.00 387.20HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27,074.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 27,461.20 935.62HARENS MEDIATION CENTER, LLC.RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 935.62 1.00HARO ELECTRIC SOLUTIONS BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 14 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 66.00 18,691.03HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 18,691.03 546.78HEFFERNAN SAM POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 546.78 400.00HENKE STEVE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 670.00HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOC. POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 670.00 19,426.65HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 309.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 255.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A LICENSES 6,207.30POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,182.50POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES 2,482.92OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS 12.00HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,700.00PARK IMPROVEMENT G & A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES 339.42PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 382.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LICENSES 900.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES 64.00REC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES 36,378.54 915.00HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS TRAINING 915.00 88.32HENRICKSEN PSG FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 88.32 428.84HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.67ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 54.85RELAMPINGOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 359.23MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,464.99LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.71PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 15 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 39.27REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,503.56 65.00HOME ENERGY CENTER BLDG & ENERGY G & A MECHANICAL 65.00 1,250.00-HOMECO INSULATION, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 25,000.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 23,750.00 65.00HOMEWORKS SERVICES CO.BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 65.00 405.00HORDYK, EVAN BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 405.00 19,450.00HOUSING AUTHORITY KIDS IN THE PARK RENT ASSIST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,450.00 3,325.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 3,325.00 105.00IAEIBLDG & ENERGY G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 105.00 498.00ICCBLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 498.00 40.00ICE SPORTS INDUSTRY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.00 266.97IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 266.99SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 266.99SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE 266.99STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,067.94 216.05IMSANDE DEREK POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 216.05 6.56INDELCOSANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 16 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,822.02WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,828.58 4,870.00INNOVYZEWATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,870.00 13,370.74INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 13,370.74 8,700.00INTECH SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,700.00 186.45INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 186.45 2,027.76I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,027.76 525.00ITERIS INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 525.00 293.82J & F REDDY RENTS ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT 293.82 441.35J. H. LARSON CO.FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 441.35 389.00JAM SOFTWARE GMBH TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 389.00 16,102.91JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 16,102.91 14.02JERRY'S HARDWARE WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.02 46.17JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO.REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,000.00REC CENTER BUILDING OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,046.17 20.00KALDERON, STEVE OPERATIONS TRAINING City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 17 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 20.00 49.65KASIC CHRIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49.65 82.80KAUFENBERG JENNIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 82.80 345.60-KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 6,912.05GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 6,566.45 1,600.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS PLACE 1,170.00ESCROWSPLATIA PLACE 37.50FINANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,807.50 250.00KENNEDY APRIL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 475.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 475.00 98.00KIDCREATE STUDIO ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 98.00 5,580.00KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,100.81STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55,680.81 2,500.00KLM ENGINEERING INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,500.00 80.50KLOBE ANDREW WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 80.50 44.31KNUTSON ERIK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 44.31 2,597.84KREMER SERVICES LLC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,597.84 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 18 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,495.75KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,495.75 3,525.00KS95-FM LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE ADVERTISING 3,525.00 21.86L ANDERSON INVESTMENTS, LLC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 21.86 618.31LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 618.31 70.00LAURSEN ASPHALT REPAIR EQUIPMENT LLC SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 70.00 7,182.72LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 7,182.72 86.66LAWSON PRODUCTS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.66 520.00LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 13,574.82EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp 14,094.82 75.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 1,280.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,355.00 8,194.76LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST P&C OPERATIONS League of MN Cities dept'l exp 156,140.24EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp 121,232.00UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSES 4,506.74UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 290,073.74 470.00LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 470.00 19.88LEHRMAN, SHARON HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19.88 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 19 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 25.00LEIK LESLIE INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 25.00 286.08LEONARD, COLLEEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 286.08 674.82LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 674.82 1,638.88-LIFESAVER FIRE PROTECTION GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 32,658.80GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 31,019.92 7,000.00LINK ADAM ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 7,000.00 2,069.83LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,069.83 831.50LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,300.54REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES 5,132.04 258.24LOFFLERIT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 258.24 889.74LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,621.70IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,511.44 37,812.00LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES 2,250.00CABLE TV G & A CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND 17,100.75TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 57,162.75 2,422.00LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,835.20GENERAL REPAIR CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 4,257.20 88.38M&E PROPERTIES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 20 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 88.38 891.08MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,294.08GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,185.16 1,840.00MACTACABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,840.00 24,494.83MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 579.38REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 25,074.21 4,990.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,990.00 905.25MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 905.25 9.50MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.OPERATIONS TRAINING 9.50 200.74MCGUIRE JUDITH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 200.74 85.38MCMONIGAL, MEG COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 85.38 25.98MENARDSGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 153.36FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.69TRAFFIC CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 64.19WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.66LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.42WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 374.30 1.00MENTON LUKE BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 75.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 76.00 12,075.00METRO BLOOMS STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 21 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,250.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 15,325.00 1,360.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,360.00 342,225.95METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPERATIONS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 342,225.95 425.00MEZERA DOUGLAS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 425.00 292.82MICRO CENTER IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 358.92ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.96TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 695.70 485.00MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 485.00 1,409.85MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 1,409.85 120.00MINNESOTA COMPOSTING COUNCIL SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 120.00 150.00MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00 10.00MINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00 33,035.00MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33,035.00 50.00MINNESOTA DEPT PUBLIC SAFETY DWI ENFORCEMENT LICENSES 50.00 187.50MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,230.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,417.50 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 22 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 770.00MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC. OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 770.00 250.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 250.00 1,046.00MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,046.00 111.62MISKOWIEC VICTORIA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 111.62 10.00MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.00 136.67MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 136.67 905.00MOSS & BARNETT CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 905.00 783.00MOTLEY MATT BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 783.00 345.00MPCAWATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 345.00 120.00MPSTMAPARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 40.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING 160.00 240.00MR CUTTING EDGE REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 240.00 49.00MRPAORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING 828.00BASKETBALLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 198.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,075.00 194.28MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 23 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 159.25GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 353.53 568.58MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 160,374.61CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY 160,943.19 60.00MURPHY JULIE ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 60.00 11,454.10-NAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SERVICES GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 229,082.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 126.50REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 217,754.40 1,041.06NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 114.43ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 115.48VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.24GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,490.21 1,840.00NATOACABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,840.00 861.24ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 861.24 486.00NEUMANN, NEAL BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 486.00 22.00NIJJAR ANNETTE INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 22.00 1,155.00NOISEADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,155.00 589.80NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 232.00WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 984.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 119.95REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 550.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 24 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 2,477.25 120.40NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 118.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 238.90 125.36NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 125.36 1,493.50-NORTHLAND PAVING GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 29,870.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 28,376.50 702.00NTOAPOLICE G & A TRAINING 702.00 10,390.05NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 10,390.05 564.87OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 564.87 175.38OESTREICH, MARK WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 175.38 5.99OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 653.01ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.20COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 53.49FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 96.55COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 457.84POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 98.74BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 234.40PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 51.14ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.65PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 34.31WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.18SOLID WASTE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 97.93ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,047.09 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 25 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 875.00OFFICE TEAM COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 875.00 103.05OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 103.05 249.50ON SITE SANITATION FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 238.00REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 593.00 433.90OVERHEAD DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 433.90 289.55OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 289.55 520.00PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 520.00 366.50PARK ADAM TRANSPORTATION WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 366.50 306.79PARTSMASTERVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 306.79 115.68PEABODY BLAKE & PEGGY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 115.68 58.00PETTY CASH POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 58.00 2,907.83PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,907.83 476.60PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 476.60 3,795.40PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,795.40 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 26 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 2,500.00PLATINUM CONSTRUCTION ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 2,500.00 101.00POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 101.00 283.63POWERPLAN OIB PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 283.63 771.92PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 100.52SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 201.92WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 201.92SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 201.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,478.20 144.88PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 144.88 478.80PRIBBENOW, NICOLE COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 478.80 2,211.79PRIME KOSHER CATERING POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 2,211.79 8,000.00PULSEPOINT FOUNDATION OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 8,000.00 259.12PUZAK CAOLINE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 259.12 5,860.00QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,860.00 1,392.60R & R SPECIALTIES REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,392.60 671.95RAILROAD MANAGEMENT COMPANY III LLC WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 671.95 5,450.00RAINBOW LAWNCARE SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 27 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 5,650.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,700.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,085.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,990.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,875.00 1,148.00RAINBOW TREECARE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,148.00 4,500.00-RAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF MINNESOTA GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 90,000.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 85,500.00 29.58RANDY'S ELECTRIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 29.58 227.50RECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 227.50 58.01REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS, LLC.POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 51.40POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.41 92.00RICH, TED WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 92.00 666.03RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 666.03 49.94RIGID HITCH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 49.94 119,426.79RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 119,426.79 327.63ROBERT B HILL CO REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 327.63 1,745.28ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 3,412.74OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,158.02 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 28 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 52.90RODRIGUEZ ANTONIO OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 52.90 33.77ROLSON CHRISTOPHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 33.77 444.86ROSA, NATE ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 444.86 170.00ROY C, INC.REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 170.00 22.00RYCE SIMON INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 22.00 2,250.00SAFETY SIGNS CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,250.00 2,976.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 2,976.00 222.00SCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 222.00 210.00SCHROHT NICOLE VOLLEYBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 210.00 1,100.25SCHWAB VOLLHABER LUBRATT SERVICE CORP FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,100.25 36.00SCHWEIN MALLORY FITNESS PROGRAMS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 36.00 84.11SEARLE, HUGO OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 84.11 388.66SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 388.66 1,000.00SELA GROUP LLC ESCROWS PMC ESCROW City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 29 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,000.00 119.61SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 119.61 72.71SERGENT DEAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 72.71 6.49SERPOSS DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 6.49 18.72SHAMLA JOE STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18.72 781.00SHAPCO PRINTING INC ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 781.00 1,982.94-SHAW STEWARD LUMBER COMPANY GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 39,658.81GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 37,675.87 18,715.80SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 18,715.80 1,075.04SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,075.04 243.78SHRED-IT ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 243.78 17.08SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7.62ASSESSING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7.63FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85.40POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17.08BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 222.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17.08ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 245.00WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 619.77 98.10SHUBEEBLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 30 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 98.10 572.50SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 572.50 140.18SKELLY GABE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 140.18 3,424.32SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 3,424.32 1,240.00SMITH, LAURA HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 1,240.00 219.00SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTHUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 219.00 2,611.68-SPLIT ROCK STUDIOS GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 52,233.66GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 49,621.98 635.10SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 635.10 686.28SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC IMS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,762.39STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,448.67 540.00ST PAUL CITY OF POLICE G & A TRAINING 540.00 2,728.45-ST PAUL UTILITIES GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 54,569.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 51,840.55 402.62STAFNE JEREMY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 402.62 60.00STANDARD HEATING & A/C BLDG & ENERGY G & A MECHANICAL 60.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 31 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 525.00STANLEY STEEMER INTERNATIONAL INC. UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 525.00 750.00-STERN DRYWALL, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 15,000.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 14,250.00 381.80STEVENS JEFF TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 381.80 732.72STEWART, ZLIMEN & JUNGERS, LTD.EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 732.72 2,843.00STRAND MFG CO SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,843.00 16.99STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 651.98POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 668.97 28.50SULLIVAN JACK STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28.50 20,214.33SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,214.33 4,161.90-SUNDIAL SOLAR ENERGY GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 83,238.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 79,076.10 2,632.00SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,632.00 1,114.00SWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,114.00 1,799.00TACTICAL ADVANTAGE POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 1,799.00 32.81TANNER ELIZABETH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 32.81 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 32 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 29.95TAPCOIMS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE SUPPLIES 29.95 18,350.00TARGET CORPORATION RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,350.00 65.00TEAM MECHANICAL, INC.BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 65.00 107.07TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 107.07 13,180.30-TELEMETRY & PROCESS CONTROL, INC. WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 87,868.58WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 87,868.60SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 87,868.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 250,425.48 7,103.84THE BUSKE GROUP CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,103.84 398.02THE MPX GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 295.70SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 693.72 88.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.00 6,255.25THE WILEY LAW OFFICE HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,255.25 304.74THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 304.74 1,394.50TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 148.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,542.50 50.00TISON ALIVIA HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 33 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 10.61TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.61 1,349.12TOWMASTERGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,349.12 2,564.91TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL CO., INC. UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 2,564.91 825.00TREATED AIR COMPANY HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE 825.00 200.00TREEHOUSEADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 200.00 1,061.79TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,061.79 105.81TUENGE RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 105.81 10,000.00TULLY, CHRISTOPHER GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 10,000.00 638.25TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 638.25 2,882.00TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,201.75SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,116.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,199.75 360.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,362.34FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 17,547.25GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 1,942.07-PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,051.64PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 233.08REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 20,612.24 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 34 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 269.97ULINEWATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 269.97 90.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNITED WAY 90.00 360.00UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 981.62US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 981.62 1,350.00-VALLEY PAVING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 54,000.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52,650.00 21.85VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 21.85 50.04VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 13,729.64CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 71.12CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 13,850.80 11,300.00VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER COMPANY HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE 11,300.00 5,935.25-VINCO, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 118,705.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 112,769.75 325.00WAIBEL SAMANTHA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.00 478.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 478.00 6,967.07WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 95,159.50SOLID WASTE G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 37,493.65SOLID WASTE G&A RECYCLING SERVICE 23,971.35SOLID WASTE G&A YARD WASTE SERVICE City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 35 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 36,418.66SOLID WASTE G&A ORGANICS 66,833.94SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 37,536.35SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE 23,998.65SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 36,810.34SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS ORGANICS 36,517.32SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 401,706.83 172.50WEST, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 172.50 3,416.40WESTWOOD SPORTS SOFTBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,416.40 351.99WILLIAMS, TIM PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 351.99 1,500.00WILLIAMS-VIDEN RYAN RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A TRAINING 1,500.00 15.00WINKLER CHRISTIN WESTWOOD G & A REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 15.00 782.46WINSUPPLY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 782.46 200.00WIRCH HEATHER HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200.00 528.74WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 528.74 500.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 342.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 842.00 124.00WS & D PERMIT SERVICE BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 124.00 2,230.50WSB ASSOC INC GIS DEVELOPMENT COMPUTER SERVICES 1,296.00ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 36 3/27/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:26:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/27/20202/22/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,526.50 1,737.60XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 24,460.74PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 80.50HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 29,598.85WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,484.54REILLY G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 4,810.63SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,101.57STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 5,479.76PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 68.74BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE 53.98WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE 22,480.46REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE 92,357.37 900.00ZAPPA JAMIE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 900.00 143.60ZIP PRINTING NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 143.60 Report Totals 4,830,535.93 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 37 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Reject bids: Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project (4018-1700) Recommended action: Motion to reject the bids received on March 5, 2020 for the Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to reject the bids as recommended by staff and rebid the project in July or August? Summary: A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is shown below: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Thomas and Sons, Construction $12,923,645 New Look Contracting, Inc. $13,681,075 Engineer’s Estimate $7,605,133 The bids for the Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project were received on March 5. Unfortunately, the bids received were extremely high. Staff believes the high bid prices are reflective of the amount of structural bridge construction in the area for SWLRT. Staff is recommending that the bids which were submitted on March 5 be rejected. Staff is also proposing to rebid this project later this year for construction to begin on Jan. 4, 2021. Financial or budget considerations: This project was included in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2020. Since the bids came in significantly higher than the engineer estimate, the city does not have the funds dedicated to complete this project at this time. Staff is proposing that this project be funded in the 2021 CIP using the following sources: Municipal state aid, franchise fees, utility funds, and 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 Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, sr. engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Reject bids: Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project (4018-1700) Discussion Background: The Louisiana Avenue Bridge project is located on Louisiana Avenue from Louisiana Circle to Excelsior Boulevard (near Methodist Hospital). An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Jan. 16, 2020 and Jan. 23, 2020, and in Finance and Commerce on Jan. 14 through Jan. 18, 2020 and Feb. 13 through Feb. 26, 2020. Email notification was provided to four (4) minority associations, and final printed plans were available for viewing at Construct Connect and at City Hall. In addition, plans and specifications were made available electronically via the internet on the city’s eGram website. Fifty-six (56) contractors/vendors obtained plan sets. In January of 2020, the Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project was advertised for bid, and bids were opened on Feb. 7. Unfortunately, no bids were received during the first bid opening. Staff communicated with contractors who would typically be interested in submitting a bid for this type of project. We were informed that it would be difficult to meet the schedule as proposed. Schedule adjustments were made prior to advertising for bid in February to allow more flexibility for potential contractors. In addition, staff reached out to bridge contractors from neighboring states to see if they had capacity to be able to fill the demand in the area. We reached out to contractors from North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Most contractors in neighboring states also stated that the local demand was high for their services and that they didn’t have much available capacity to commit to additional work. The contract documents were put out for bid again in February. Staff was hopeful that a revised project schedule would add flexibility for contractors and encourage them to submit a bid. Staff received two bids at the bid opening on March 5. The bids submitted were extremely high. We contacted the companies who submitted bids to get a better understanding of how the prices were so far off. We were informed that the two road construction contractors who bid on this project were only able to get one subcontractor to give them a price to build the bridge. The bridge contractors currently have so much work that most are unable to add any additional projects this summer. The following is a summary of the bid results: Total Thomas and Sons Construction $12,923,645 New Look Contracting, Inc. $13,681,075 Engineer estimate $7,605,133 The contractors in the area who build bridges are extremely busy this year. The SWLRT project is consuming 2 large bridge contractors who would typically construct these types of projects. Therefore, the same amount of bridge work is being distributed among fewer contractors. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Reject bids: Louisiana Avenue Bridge Project (4018-1700) Next steps: We continue to closely monitor the condition of the bridge. WSB and Associates (our bridge program administrator) completed an inspection of the Louisiana Avenue bridge on March 31, 2020. The inspector noted that the bridge is continuing to show signs of degradation. Since the bridge will be in service for another 8 months, WSB is recommending that a load rating be completed on the bridge. This will determine if the weight allowed on the bridge should be limited. It is expected that bridge load limits will be reduced. They will know the results of the load rating within the next two weeks, and we plan on implementing the load limits as soon as we receive guidance from WSB. Staff is recommending that the Louisiana Avenue Bridge project be rebid later this year for a Jan. 4, 2021 construction start. We believe the bidding environment will be better at that time as bridge contractors will still have capacity for the 2021 construction season. It also allows for work on the bridge to begin in winter, which is preferred by bridge contractors as they typically work year-round. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Retirement recognition for Office Assistant Karen Murphy Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution to recognize Office Assistant Karen Murphy for her 25 years of service. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city council. Karen has chosen not to be honored with a presentation and will not be attending the council meeting. This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Karen for her years of service. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Retirement recognition for Office Assistant Karen Murphy Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to Police Office Assistant Karen Murphy Whereas, Karen Murphy began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 25 years ago on July 25, 1994; and Whereas, Karen began her career with the city as data entry specialist with the police department on July 25, 1994; and Whereas, Karen was promoted to the position of office assistant on October 25, 1999; and Whereas, Karen provided outstanding service to three police chiefs; and Whereas, Karen provided outstanding service and attention to detail in the property room assignment and was an asset to the police department in that role; and Whereas, Karen provided outstanding service and support to all department personnel and the community; and Whereas, Karen received commendations from the St. Louis Park Police Department for exemplary service to the department and the public; Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Karen Murphy for her great contributions and more than 25 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish her the best in her retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Bid tabulation: sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation – project no. 4020-3000 Recommended action: Motion to designate Visu-Sewer as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $314,318.05 for the sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation project no. 4020-3000. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the city’s practice of rehabilitating sanitary sewer infrastructure through lining? Summary: Bids were received on March 30, 2020 for sanitary sewer gravity mainline rehabilitation. A total of six bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Visu-Sewer $314,318.05 Insituform Technologies USA, LLC $337,728.30 Hydro-Klean, LLC $341,069.00 SAK Construction $342,810.75 Granite Inliner $378,933.00 Veit & Company $445,070.00 Engineer’s Estimate $376,717.20 A review of the bids indicates Visu-Sewer submitted the lowest bid. Visu-Sewer is a reputable contractor that has successfully completed work for the city before. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $314,318.05. Following guidance from state health officials and to prevent further spread of COVID-19, the contractor and city staff will maintain physical distancing practices while working. The project team is closely monitoring updates and will be continuing with construction unless conditions change significantly. Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s adopted capital improvement plan, which set the 2020 budget at $500,000.00. The low bid received is well within the budget for this work. This project is paid for using sanitary sewer utility funds. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, sr. engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Bid tabulation: sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation – project no. 4020-3000 Discussion Background: The city has a program to routinely video inspect the sewer system. Video inspection has revealed structural defects in various lines. Due to structural defects, infiltration, sewer blockages (backups), or line collapse may occur. To address these structural defects, before they lead to the problems described above, the city’s capital improvement plan includes annual funding for a sanitary sewer mainlining program. Lining can extend the life of our sanitary sewers by 50 years or more. This technology, called cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) renewal, installs a new resin pipe inside the old clay tile sewer main without digging up city streets, which results in minimal disruption to residents during construction. The liner pipe is inserted into the main through existing manholes and cured in place with a heat or steam process. Any given segment is usually completed in one working day. Service line connections are reopened using a robotic cutter and remote cameras. During the process, existing flows are bypassed using pumps. Project 4020-3000 includes lining of 13,000 feet of sanitary sewer mains in the streets of nine different construction areas throughout the city. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 5, 2020. In addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com. Email notification was provided to four (4) minority associations. Construction Timeline Construction is tentatively planned to begin in April and should be completed by July 30, 2020. The Governor’s stay at home executive order identifies infrastructure construction projects and the staff that supports it as critical sector work. As a result, workers engaged in both office and field work are continuing to do so. Due to the nature of the work it is felt that construction workers and our staff will be able to work safely. Following guidance from state health officials and to prevent further spread of COVID-19, the contractor and city staff are following work environment protocols as outlined by public health agencies, including asking employees to say home if sick, frequent hand washing, and maintaining physical distance at work. Some of our city engineering staff are working from home while others will be onsite to ensure proper oversight of the project. The project team is closely monitoring updates and will be continuing with construction unless conditions change significantly. All staff will stay connected by email, telephone and videoconferencing to manage construction activities and work with the public. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: TS 727 – Removal of permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 17-177, removing permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue. Policy consideration: The installation and removal of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: In March 2020, staff received a request by the owner of 2829 Louisiana Avenue to remove the permit parking adjacent to their property, stating that the individual needing the access no longer resides at this address. The parking was installed in Nov. 2017 under the city’s medical needs permit parking ordinance (Sec. 30-160) through traffic study 687 (attached). Engineering staff reviewed this request and recommends the removal of the permit parking. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. 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: Resolution Traffic study 687 (pp. 38-40) Resolution 17-177 – to be rescinded Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: TS 727 – Removal of permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue Resolution No. 20-____ Removal of permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to remove permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue; and, Whereas, the permit parking was installed under the city’s medical needs permit parking ordinance (Sec. 30-160) through traffic study 687; and, Whereas, engineering staff reviewed this request and recommended the removal of said permit parking; 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 St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 17-177 be rescinded. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 29TH ST WLOUISIANA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SMARYLAND AVE S2854 2906 2813 2818 2817 2824 2821 2830 2825 2836 2829 2842 2833 2848 2901 2905 2909 2900 2908 2912 2837 2854 2900 2809 2812 2817 2821 2825 2829 2833 2837 2841 2845 2849 2816 2901 2853 2905 2820 2824 2909 2912 2828 2915 2832 2836 2840 2844 2848 29162917 2857 2815 291829152915 2812 0 100 20050 Feet ´ TS 687 - Extents Map - 11/20/17 Legend Proposed Permit Parking Restrictions Property Lines City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 727 – Removal of permit parking restrictions at 2829 Louisiana Avenue Page 3 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Cedarwood Dachis Addition. •Motion to adopt Resolution approving a variance to allow an accessory structure in the side yard. Policy consideration: Does the project meet all subdivision and zoning regulations for a plat, and meet the standards for a variance? Summary: Toni Dachis applied for a preliminary and final plat and a zoning variance for property she owns at 4000 25th Street West. The plat proposes to subdivide one lot into three lots. The existing home would remain on one of the lots and two new buildable single-family residential lots would be created along France Avenue South. The variance would allow the existing pool house to remain in its current location. City code requires the pool house to be located in the rear yard, however, as a result of the subdivision, the orientation of the yards in relation to the house will change and the pool house will be located in the side yard. Therefore, a variance is required to allow it to remain in the side yard. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on February 4, 2020. Two people attended and voiced support for the subdivision and variance. The city received one letter of support from a person that could not attend the meeting. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on February 19, 2020. Two people spoke. The planning commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. The planning commission minutes are attached. The park and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) did not meet due to the health pandemic. In order to respond to the application in a timely manner and within State-mandated deadlines, staff recommends proceeding without the PRAC recommendation and accept $3,000 cash-in- lieu of park land dedication and $450 for the trail dedication fee. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion, draft resolution for preliminary and final plat, draft resolution approving variance, excerpt of planning commission minutes, letter from applicant, letter of support, official exhibits 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 April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Discussion Background: The property is improved with one single-family house constructed in 1952. The pool house in question was constructed in 2002. The front of the house faces France Avenue South, and the driveway accesses 25th Street West. Site information: Site area: 80,608 square feet (1.85 acres) Current use: Surrounding land uses: Single-family residential Neighborhood: Fern Hill North: Single-family residential East: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning RL - low density residential R-1 single-family residence Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city: 1.Approve a preliminary and final plat to subdivide the property into three lots. 2.Approve a variance to allow the pool house to remain in the side yard of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Cedarwood Dachis Addition. Subdivision: City staff reviewed the proposed subdivision and staff find it meets all the subdivision requirements. SITE 25th St W Huntington Ave S City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Minimum lot size. The R-1 district requires each lot to have at least 9,000 square feet of lot area. All three proposed lots are greater than 9,000 square feet. Minimum lot width. The R-1 district requires each lot to have at least 75 feet of lot frontage. The subdivision ordinance requires an additional 10 feet of frontage be added to the lot frontage for the corner lot. Each lot exceeds the minimum required lot frontage. Front lot line. The front lot line is defined as the lot line that abuts a street. For corner lots, the front lot line is the shorter of the two lot lines abutting the two streets. The street adjacent to the front lot lines of the three lots are indicated in the table. Yard requirements. The minimum yards required are listed in the table to the right and the location of the required yards are illustrated on the map below the table. There are some exceptions to allow certain structures to encroach upon the required yards. For example, the swimming pool can be five feet from the rear lot line. Tree replacement. The city requires trees that are removed as a result of the development to be replaced according to a formula listed in the zoning ordinance. The proposed subdivision requires few changes to the property, except some minimal grading to construct a sidewalk along 25th Street West. We anticipate there will be impacts to the existing trees when the lot are developed with new houses, and we will not know which trees will be removed until then. Staff proposes that the tree replacement be calculated for each individual lot at the time the building permits are submitted to construct the new houses. The new homeowners will be Lot Lot Size Lot 1 44,975 square feet Lot 2 17,808 square feet Lot 3 17,825 square feet Lot Lot Width Lot 1 241 feet Lot 2 166 feet Lot 3 corner lot 168 feet Lot Front Lot Line Lot 1 25th St W Lot 2 France Ave S Lot 3 corner lot 25th St W Yard Yard Size Front 33 feet for Lots 1 and 3, and 30 feet for Lot 2. Rear 25 feet Interior sides 6 feet Side abutting a street 15 feet (Lot 3 along France Ave S) City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance required to plant replacement trees on-site, and for any shortfall in the caliper inches of trees required to replace the trees removed, the homeowner will be required to pay a tree replacement fee into the city’s tree fund for planting trees on public lands. The tree replacement requirement will be calculated based on the formula established in the zoning ordinance and the fee will be based on the city’s fee schedule. Lot access. Access for each lot is proposed as follows: •Lot 1 currently has access to 25th Street West, and that access will remain unchanged. •Lot 2 will have access to France Avenue South. •Lot 3 can have access to either France Avenue South or 25th Street West, however, the engineering department shall review and approve the proposed driveway access. The draft resolution includes requiring driveways that access France Avenue South to have a built-in turnaround on the private property so vehicles leaving the lots do not have to back onto France Avenue South. Sidewalk. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks be constructed along all street frontages. A six-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the north side of 25th Street West to the western property line, where it will dead end. A sidewalk already exists along France Avenue South. Park and trail dedication. Staff recommends accepting park dedication fees in lieu of land. The 2020 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication fee at $1,500 per dwelling unit. The trail dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit. Typically, the parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) reviews the park and trail dedications for subdivisions. However, due to the health pandemic the PRAC did not meet to discuss the application. Variance: The requested variance is to city code section 36-162(d)(1)a which requires accessory structures to be in the rear yard. As a result of the subdivision, the yards for the existing home will be reoriented, and the pool house will be in the side yard of the proposed Lot 1, six feet from the side lot line. A variance is required for the pool house to remain in its current location when the lot is subdivided. Existing conditions: The property as it currently exists today is a corner lot with frontage on both France Avenue South and 25th Street West. For corner lots the shorter lot line adjacent to a street is the front lot line. The lot line along France Avenue South is shorter than the lot line along 25th Street West; therefore, the front yard is along France Avenue South, and the rear yard is along the west property line. When the pool house was constructed in 2002, it was built in accordance with city code, because it was built in the rear yard. Proposed conditions: The subdivision, however, will result in the yards for proposed Lot 1 to reorient to 25th Street West causing the pool house to be in the side yard instead of the rear yard as required by code. Below is an illustration of the yards as they currently exist compared to how they would exist if the subdivision is approved. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 5 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance The term “yards” has a different definition when applied to accessory buildings. In this case, yards are defined as the area between the lot line and the principal building (house). For example, the front yard is the area bound by the side lot lines between the front lot line and the elevation of the house facing the street. Variance analysis: Staff reviewed the proposed variance and staff recommend approval based on the following findings: 1.The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. The pool house was constructed in 2002, and has been utilized in this location since then without any known problems or complaints. The reorientation of the yards resulting from the subdivision will not alter the physical location of the pool house, and will not increase its impact on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff find the variance will not negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. When the pool house was constructed in 2002, it met code as it was in the rear yard. While the subdivision is reorienting the yards, the pool house is still located behind the house when considering the physical layout of the house. 3.The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is being utilized for single-family residential, which is consistent with the RL-low density residential designation. 4.The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. This means that: a.The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. Pool house Existing configuration Meets code Proposed configuration Variance required Side Yards City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 6 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance b.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. e.Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The pool house is allowed in the zoning district as an accessory use to the home. It was constructed in its current location in 2002 and fits the character of the home and neighborhood. 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions or other physical conditions of the property. The property has a very small rear yard. Most of the rear yard is occupied by the pool. The only open areas available in the backyard are impacted by grade change and retaining walls in the northwest corner and the pool equipment located to the east of the pool. Both options would be costly to relocate the pool house if the variance is not granted. If the variance is not granted, the most likely action would be to remove the pool house. 6.The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. While the pool house is not a substantial property right, it currently exists and has been a part of the home and area for 18 years. 7.The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. As noted above, the pool house has been in its current location for 18 years. The adjacent property to the west is single-family residential, with its attached garage being the closest part of the structure to the pool house. 8.The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The practical difficulty is that the pool house was constructed in 2002. Therefore, the request for a variance is not for a new structure, but to preserve an existing structure that has been serving the residents for 18 years. Climate action plan: The subdivision will result in two new buildable single-family lots, which will be constructed to current energy efficiency codes. Efforts will be made to preserve the existing trees on the site. Trees removed for the construction of the homes will be replaced in accordance to the tree replacement formulas established by the zoning ordinance. If it is not practical to plant the new trees on the lots, fees will be paid to the city for tree plantings on public property in other parts of the city. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 7 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Cedarwood Dachis Addition 4000 25th Street West Whereas, Toni Dachis, owner of land proposed to be platted as Cedarwood Dachis Addition has applied for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code; Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedarwood. Whereas, legal notice was published in the official newspaper and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing regarding the application; Whereas, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 2020, and the commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the application with conditions; Whereas, City Code section 26-158(c) requires the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding accepting cash- in-lieu of land for park dedication. In response to the pandemic, Governor’s Order 20-20 and City Council Resolution 20-066, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission did not hold a meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding park dedication for the current application. Based on Resolution 20-066 and the City’s desire to provide efficient and ongoing services, city staff recommended the City Council adopt city staff’s recommendation regarding park dedication; Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Cedarwood Dachis Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1.The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2.A six-foot wide sidewalk be constructed along 25th Street West as shown on the grading plan with pedestrian ramps as required by the city engineering department. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 8 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance 3.Prior to issuance of a building permit for each new house, the following conditions shall be met: a.A tree replacement calculation shall be made for the lot upon which the house will be built. Trees shall be replaced on-site, and a fee in-lieu paid to the city for any shortfall, as allowed per the zoning ordinance. b.Driveways that access France Avenue South shall have a built-in turnaround so vehicles leaving the lots do not have to back onto France Avenue South. 4.All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary building façade materials. 5.Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat for filing with Hennepin County: a.A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. b.Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 6.Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a.The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $3,000. b.The developer shall pay to the city the trail dedication fee of $450. c.Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. d.Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. e.A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. f.All necessary permits shall be obtained. g.A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, streetlights, landscaping, etc.) and private site landscaping. 7.The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. It is further resolved The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 9 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26- 123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 10 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving variance to allow an Accessory structure in the side yard 4000 25th Street West Whereas, Toni Dachis, owner of land proposed to be platted as Cedarwood Dachis Addition applied for approval of a variance to allow the existing pool house to remain in the side yard; and Whereas, the proposed property is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedarwood Dachis Addition; and Whereas, the pool house was constructed in 2002 in the rear yard as required by city code. The current location, however, will become the side yard upon approval of the Cedarwood Dachis Addition plat; and Whereas, the city council reviewed the application for variance Case No. 19-40-VAR on April 6, 2020. Whereas, based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the city council determined that the requested variance meets the requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the zoning ordinance necessary to be met to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a.The pool house has was constructed in 2002, and has been utilized in this location since then without any known problems or complaints. The reorientation of the yards resulting from the subdivision will not alter the physical location of the pool house, and will not increase its impact on adjacent properties. b.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. When the pool house was constructed in 2002, it met code by being located in the rear yard. While the subdivision is reorienting the yards, the pool house is still located behind the house when considering the physical layout of the house. c.The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is being utilized for single-family residential, which is consistent with the RL-low density residential designation. e.The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 19-40-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Now therefore be it resolved that the requested variance to allow the existing pool house to remain six feet from the west property line and in the side yard of the property to be City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 11 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedarwood Dachis Addition is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1.The garage shall be constructed in accordance to the following exhibits: a.Exhibit A – Survey showing location of the proposed garage located at least three feet from the west property line along Brunswick Avenue South. b.Exhibit B – Building elevations showing the size and height of the garage. 2.The garage may not be expanded or added onto unless this variance is amended to reflect the proposed change. 3.The variance is automatically revoked and canceled if construction of the proposed garage is not substantially completed within two years as outlined in city code section 36-38(a)(9). 4.The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. It is further resolved The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 12 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 19, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynette Dumalag STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther 3.Public Hearings A.Cedarwood Dachis Addition preliminary and final plat Applicant: Toni Dachis Case Nos: 19-39-Sm 19-40-VAR Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant requested a subdivision and variance at 4000 25th Street West, in the Fern Hill neighborhood. He noted the lot sizes for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Access to lot 1 will be unchanged off 25th Street West, lot 2 will access France Avenue, and lot 3 access could be off France Avenue South or 25th Street West. Mr. Morrison stated there are no proposals for tree removal, but this will be determined when building permits are submitted for lots 2 and 3. He noted sidewalks will be included along 25th Street West. The house and pool house are in the back yard, according to current code. With the subdivision, however, the lot lines are reoriented, so the front and rear yards will change, and the variance request becomes evident because the pool house will be in the side yard, after the changes. Mr. Morrison stated the property use is single family residential, consistent with low density residential designation. He stated if the variance is not approved, the pool house would need to be relocated or removed. Two people spoke in favor of the applications at the neighborhood meeting and a letter of support was received from a third resident. Mr. Morrison stated that staff requests approval of the preliminary and final plat, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Further, staff recommended approval of the variance to allow an accessory structure in the side yard, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Robertson asked about the sidewalk at the subdivision and if it would connect with any other sidewalks. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 13 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance Mr. Morrison stated it would connect to the sidewalk on the west side of France Avenue South and a sidewalk on the east side of Huntington Avenue South. Commission Johnson-Madison asked if the sidewalk will dead-end on 25th street. Mr. Morrison stated it will not continue and connect to any sidewalks west of the site along 25th Street West, adding the city engineering department recently lead a public process regarding potentially adding more sidewalks in this neighborhood and city council decided not to pursue that option. Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. Lynne Carper, 4010 Highwood Road, stated initially the sign posted about the work was not clear. He initially thought it was referring to the road and sidewalk improvements planned for this summer. It wasn’t until he spoke with Councilmember Rog that he learned there was a subdivision proposed here. Mr. Carper stated he has been aware of subdivisions in his area, and stated the preference was for not doing subdivisions in these neighborhoods. However, he added, he does understand property owners do have the right to do what they prefer on their properties, so he will support this. Additionally, he asked if the zoning will change now or in the future from single-family housing. Mr. Morrison stated the property is guided in the comprehensive plan as low-density residential and zoned R-2 residential. Staff does not anticipate any changes. Mr. Carper wondered if the lots would meet the minimum lot size, and indeed it does, according to Mr. Morrison’s presentation. He asked at what point does the sidewalk get constructed, and does the owner put the sidewalks in. Mr. Morrison stated the sidewalk installation will be at the applicant’s expense and will be coordinated with street improvements in the area. Mr. Carper asked about driveways and if there will be a driveway on the northern most side of the property. There is no intention to have a second driveway on France Avenue, it will come off 25th Street. Mr. Morrison stated there will be a final decision made by the engineering department when right-of-way permits are requested and when the house plans are submitted for building permits. Mr. Carper asked if a house is inserted will the new address be on France Avenue. Mr. Morrison stated staff will look at this and can make a change administratively with the owner’s consent. Michael Meyer, 2512 Huntington Avenue South, stated the property is well maintained and very open. He is concerned that once the property is changed, it’s gone. He is also City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 14 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance concerned about hardscape and the addition of sidewalks, patios, foundations, as well. He stated about 20 trees might have to be removed and he has concerns about this as well, and is concerned the replacements might not be made in the same area. He asked if the home will fit into the neighborhood, adding he is concerned about this, and about the impact on his home as it relates to the view. Right now, there is no parking on France Avenue at this area, and he is concerned about where folks will park when visiting and overflow parking. Mr. Meyer added there is a city bus turnout, asked if that will stay or go, and if the bus company be brought into this discussion. He is also concerned about proximity the to the holding ponds and Cedar Lake area. Mr. Meyer stated if approved will this be two separate lots. He asked if other builders come in, will they build in order to benefit the other properties in the area. This summer the roads in this area will be reconstructed. He is concerned about the mess that will occur with both projects going on simultaneously. He is also concerned about a two- story home and how it will affect their view. Also, if the driveways are on France Avenue, he has concerns about traffic there, and on 25th Street, especially with safety for bikers and pedestrians. Toni Dachis, 4000 West 25th Street, is the applicant. She stated the concerns are legitimate; she has thought about them and will do what she can to accommodate what was mentioned, if she has control. She stated she needs to be able to move and downsize and she hopes a new owner will keep the existing house as is. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she is very familiar with this beautiful area. She stated she has learned nothing stays the same, times change and she feels the value of the neighborhood will determine the value of the homes built on lot 2 and 3. The houses built on the lots will likely fit in with the neighborhood and she will vote to approve this. Commission Eckholm agreed and added the applicant has gone out of their way to make this right by the neighborhood. He hates to see the loss of mature trees and the best that can be done is to require that they are replaced. He will support this. Commissioner Beneke asked if there is any consideration to bike trails on France Avenue. Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor, stated there is already a bike lane on France Avenue and a sidewalk on the west side of the road as well, and there are no other plans at this time. Commissioner Robertson stated this is a good plan and the concerns are valid, however, folks have the right to do what they want with their own property. He asked about the City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 15 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance location of the bus turnout, and if the south lot wants to have access off France Avenue, will the turnout be moveable. He stated he will support this project. Mr. Morrison stated the first priority would be to not change a turnout. If it does need to be changed, there is a process with Metro Transit and a cost associated with it. Chair Kraft likes the plan as well and is excited about the single-family home development. She stated the loss of trees is sad, but she is glad for the replacement program. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Eckholm seconded, recommending approval of the addition of the preliminary and final plat, and the variance on the side yard, subject to the recommendations by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 16 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 17 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 18 Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition – preliminary and final plat and variance City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition –preliminary and final plat and variancePage 19 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition –preliminary and final plat and variancePage 20 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition –preliminary and final plat and variancePage 21 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition –preliminary and final plat and variancePage 22 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Cedarwood Dachis Addition –preliminary and final plat and variancePage 23 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000) Recommended action: Motion to approve right of way purchase for parcel 1 and parcel 2 for Dakota bikeway and bridge project. Policy consideration: None Summary: On March 16, 2020 the city council approved the final plans and authorized advertisement for bids for the Dakota bikeway and bridge project. In order to construct this project per the approved layout and within the guidelines of the federal process, the city needs to acquire right of way, permanent and temporary easements from seven private property owners. The city’s right of way consultant has been working with the property owners to acquire the necessary right of way, permanent and temporary easements since 2019. Many of these properties have agreed to the offers presented based on the appraisal and have either completed or are close to executing the agreements. Most of these acquisitions can be completed administratively; however, parcel 1 and parcel 2 require signed documents by the mayor and city clerk pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.201 due to the fee title acquisition of parcel 1 and the memorandum of understanding for parcel 2. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2020 and 2021. The acquisition of the land 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 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 sketches Parcel 1 draft documents Parcel 2 final documents Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000) Discussion Background: On March 16, 2020 the city council approved the final plans and authorized advertisement for bids for the Dakota Bikeway Bridge Project. In order to construct this project per the approved plan, the city needs to acquire right of way, permanent and temporary easements from private property owners. Right of way acquisition activities: Construction of the approved plan for the project will impact seven parcels adjacent to the project area. As a result, it is necessary to obtain a combination of right of way, permanent and temporary easements. The temporary easements are only needed for the duration of construction and will expire after construction is complete. The acquisition of these parcels began in 2019 with appraisals and initial offers to the property owners. It was expected that many of the parcels would agree to the offers presented based on the appraisal. However, to ensure the property was acquired in time to meet the federal approval process deadlines, the city initiated the eminent domain process in November 2019. The project continued to negotiate agreements in parallel to the eminent domain process. Four of the seven parcels have agreed to the offers presented by the city’s right of way consultant. Of those four parcels, two can be executed administratively. However, parcel 1 and parcel 2 require signed documents by the mayor and city clerk pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.201 for the following reasons: •Parcel 1 – initially, the city pursued acquisition of a permanent easement. Through the acquisition process, there was an agreement to purchase the parcel in fee title, giving the city more flexibility on how we use the parcel. There were no changes in the cost of this acquisition. There is also no change to the temporary easement. Permanent easement =$159,400, temporary easement = $2,100. •Parcel 2 – the property owner’s representative requested a memorandum of understanding (MOU) be drafted to outline project responsibilities. The MOU ensures access to the site is always maintained and impacts to the irrigation system are addressed as part of the project. In addition, the owner’s representation requested the permeant easement be executed by council. Permanent easement =$22,400, temporary easement = $25,286. Parcels 3 and 7 have already agreed to terms. It is anticipated that parcels 4, 5 and 6 will proceed with eminent domain in early May to acquire the needed temporary construction easements to build the trail. The following table summarizes the status of all seven parcels. Parcel number Address Permanent Easement Area (square ft) Temporary Easement Area (square ft) Status 1 2400 Edgewood Ave S 22,190 2,930 Addressed in this report 2 2401 Edgewood Ave S 1,830 17,920 Addressed in this report 3 6500 26th Street W 0 16,310 Administrative approval 4 2231 Edgewood Ave S 0 6,080 Eminent domain 5 2219 Edgewood Ave S 0 4,130 Eminent domain 6 2211 Edgewood Ave S 0 6,990 Eminent domain 7 2201 Edgewood Ave S 0 7,770 Administrative approval pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\Documents\Projects\11523\03_Design\Z_Working\Struc\CBlack\11523_Prelim_Graphics.dgn7/23/2019 Job #11523.00 PID: ADDRESS: OWNER: SP 163-090-003 Roadway: Edgewood Ave. DRAFT PD1 Figure PARCEL 1 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY EDGEWOOD AVENUE S.2400 Edgewood Ave. S NUMBER R0823 PROPOSED BRIDGE 0811721140001 2400 Edgewood Avenue South Quest Properties Inc. IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMANENT EASEMENT LINE AREA = `22,190 SQ. FT. PERMANENT EASEMENT 0 25 50 FEETSCALE 113.00'LEGEND AREA = `2,930 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY EASEMENT33.00'80.00'10.00'10.00' City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 3 pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\Documents\Projects\11523\03_Design\Z_Working\Struc\CBlack\11523_Prelim_Graphics.dgn7/22/2019 Job #11523.00 PID: ADDRESS: OWNER: SP 163-090-003 Roadway: Edgewood Ave. DRAFT 2401 Edgewood Ave. SEDGEWOOD AVENUE S.23RD ST. W. PARCEL 2 PD2 Figure 0811721140043 2401 Edgewood Avenue South AX TC Industrial III, LP 0 50 100 FEETSCALE PERMANENT EASEMENT LINE IN-PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGEND AREA = `1,830 SQ. FT. PERMANENT EASEMENT TEMPORARY EASEMENT LINE AREA = `17,920 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY EASEMENT NUMBER R0823 PROPOSED BRIDGE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY25.00'80.00'115.00' 5.00' 40.00'405.00'121.47'City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 4 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT St. Louis Park Dakota Edgewood Trail Project Parcel No: 1 Fee Owners: Quest Properties, Inc. On this day of , 20 , Quest Properties, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, Owners of the property designated as Parcel 1 in the City of St. Louis Park Dakota Edgewood Trail project and located in the City of St. Louis Park, State of Minnesota, did execute and deliver the following conveyances to the aforesaid real estate interests to the City of St. Louis Park. This document is a Memorandum of terms agreed upon in connection with the above transaction. It is hereby acknowledged and agreed upon between the parties that: 1.The Owners have been furnished with the approved estimate of just compensation for the property to be acquired and statement of the basis for the estimate. The Owners understand that the acquired property is for use in connection with a public improvement project carried out by the City St. Louis Park and identified as the Dakota Edgewood Trail Project. 2. The Owners have requested that the City purchase fee title to the property previously identified by the City to be acquired as Permanent Easement over Parcel 1. The parties have agreed upon a Purchase Agreement and the complete terms of this purchase appear in that Purchase Agreement. The purchase price identified in that Agreement is One Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($159,500.00). 3.The parties have agreed that the City will purchase the Temporary Easement as identified on the easement exhibits and on the estimate of just compensation and the purchase price for the Temporary Easement shall be Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($2100.00). All remaining terms of the Temporary Easement are identified on the Temporary Easement document. 4.Therefore the total compensation paid to the Owner shall be One Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($161,600) which is comprised of $159,500 for purchase of property in fee as fully described in the Purchase Agreement and $2100 for purchase of the Temporary Easement described in the Temporary Easement document. This amount shall be paid on a closing date to be scheduled as soon as possible following execution of the Purchase Agreement, the Temporary Easement, and this Memorandum of Agreement. DATED: ________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK BY: Its: Mayor By: ____________________________________ Its: City Clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 5 DATED: ________________________ QUEST PROPERTIES, INC. BY: Its: ______________________________________ City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 6 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT is effective as of the _______ day of March, 2020, by and between the CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with a mailing address at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., Saint Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (“Purchaser”), and QUEST PROPERTIES, INC., a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with a mailing address at 27 East Oak, North Oaks, Minnesota 55127 (“Seller”). RECITALS: A. Seller is the owner in fee simple of the property located at 2400 Edgewood Avenue South, in the City of Saint Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit A, including existing buildings, together with all other existing improvements located thereon, all appurtenant rights, easements, mineral rights, and all right, title and interest of Seller in and to all streets, alleys, strips, and rights-of-way over or abutting said land, for which Seller has an interest (the “Property”); B. The parties agree that this Agreement is the result of a negotiated purchase of the Subject Property in lieu of condemnation. AGREEMENT: In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. Subject to compliance with the terms, covenants and conditions of this Purchase Agreement, Seller shall convey the Property to the Purchaser. 2. PRICE AND TERMS. The price for the Property included under this Purchase Agreement is One Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($159,500.00) (“Purchase Price”), which Purchaser shall pay to Seller in cash or by wire transfer of U.S. Federal Funds at Closing. 3. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Upon performance by Purchaser, Seller shall execute and deliver a Warranty Deed, conveying good and marketable title of record, subject to: A. Reservations of minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, if any; B. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; and C. Any other matters consented to by Purchaser in writing or not timely objected to by Purchaser. 4. RELOCATION BENEFITS. Seller is aware of Seller’s rights and payments that Seller may be eligible to receive pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (the “Act”). Seller acknowledges that Seller has been given the opportunity to seek and receive the advice of legal City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 7 2 counsel with respect to relocation, moving, reestablishment and other costs, if any, that may be available under the Act. 5. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. A. Prior Years’ Delinquent Real Estate Taxes and Delinquent Special Assessments. Delinquent real estate taxes payable in years prior to the year of Closing and delinquent installments of special assessments certified for collection with real estate taxes payable in years prior to the year of Closing, together with penalty, interest and costs, shall be paid by Purchaser not later than the Date of Closing. B. Real Estate Taxes Payable in the Year of Closing. Real estate taxes payable in the year of Closing shall be paid by Purchaser. Purchaser shall pay penalty, interest, and costs on any delinquent installment of taxes and special assessments payable by Purchaser in the year of Closing. Purchaser shall assume all other taxes and installments not paid at Closing. C. Deferred Real Estate Taxes. Purchaser shall pay on Date of Closing or provide for payment of any deferred real estate taxes (including “Green Acres” taxes under Minn. Stat. § 273.111) payment of which is required as a result of the Closing of this sale and the recording of the Deed. Provision for payment shall be by payment into escrow of 1.5 times the estimated payoff amount of the deferred taxes. D. Certified Special Assessments. All installments of special assessments certified for payment with the real estate taxes payable in the year of Closing shall be paid by Purchaser at Closing. E. All Other Levied Special Assessments. Purchaser shall pay on the Date of Closing all other special assessments levied as of the date of this Purchase Agreement. 6. SELLER’S BOUNDARY LINE, ACCESS, RESTRICTIONS AND LIEN WARRANTIES. Seller warrants that, to its actual knowledge, buildings on adjoining real property, if any, are entirely outside of the boundary lines of the Property. Seller warrants that, to its actual knowledge, there has been no labor or material furnished to the Property for which payment has not been made. Seller warrants that, to its actual knowledge, there are no present violations of any restrictions relating to the use or improvement of the Property. These warranties shall survive for a period of ninety (90) days from the delivery of the Deed. 7. ACCESS PRIOR TO CLOSING. Upon reasonable notice to Seller, Purchaser and Purchaser’s authorized agents shall have the right during the period from the date of this Agreement to the Date of Closing to enter in and upon the Property in order to make, at Purchaser’s expense, surveys, measurements, soil tests and other tests that Purchaser may deem necessary. Purchaser agrees to restore any resulting damage to the Property and to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Seller from any and all claims of any nature whatsoever arising from Purchaser’s right of entry hereunder, including all actions, proceedings, demands, assessments, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. Purchaser shall not perform any invasive testing of the Property without Seller’s prior written consent. Seller’s consent may be conditioned upon any restrictions that Seller deems necessary. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 8 3 8. POSSESSION. Seller shall deliver possession of the Property not later than the Closing Date. 9. TITLE INSURANCE. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement, Purchaser shall be responsible for obtaining title evidence and reviewing title to the Property. Purchaser shall be allowed thirty (30) days after the receipt of the title commitment for examination of title and making any objections, which shall be made in writing or deemed waived. 10. TITLE CORRECTIONS AND REMEDIES. Seller shall have 120 days from receipt of Purchaser's written title objections to make title marketable. Upon receipt of Purchaser’s title objections, Seller shall, within ten (10) business days, notify Purchaser of Seller’s intention to make title marketable within the 120 day period. Liens or encumbrances for liquidated amounts which can be released by payment or escrow from proceeds of closing shall not delay the closing. Cure of the defects by Seller shall be reasonable, diligent, and prompt. Pending correction of title, all payments required herein and the closing shall be postponed. Upon correction of title and within ten (10) days after written notice to Purchaser, the parties shall perform this Agreement according to its terms. If no such notice is given or if notice is given but title is not corrected within the time provided for, the Purchaser (at Purchaser's option) shall have the right to: (a) terminate this Agreement in which case the parties will have no further rights, duties or obligations hereunder, except those obligations that expressly survive termination, or (b) accept title to the Property subject to the objections Seller has elected not to cure, without reduction in the amount of the Purchase Price, in which case such objections to title will be deemed to have become Permitted Exceptions. 11. LIEN FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE. Sellers indicate that the Property IS NOT subject to a lien for Medical Assistance or other public assistance. 12. WELL DISCLOSURE. [Check one of the following:] X Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the Property. Wells on the Property are disclosed by Seller on the attached Well Disclosure form. 13. DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. [Check one of the following:] X Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any individual on-site sewage treatment systems on the Property. Individual on-site sewage treatment systems on the Property are disclosed by Seller on the attached Disclosure form. 14. PROTECTED HISTORICAL SITES. [Select either one of the following:] X Seller represents that Seller does not know if there are historical, native American, or archeological materials on or in the Property that might be protected by law. To Seller’s knowledge, the property does not have any American Indian burial grounds, other human burial grounds, ceremonial earthworks, historical materials, and/or other archeological sites that are protected by federal or state law. Purchaser’s obligation City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 9 4 to close is contingent upon Purchaser determining to Purchaser’s satisfaction that the property does not have any American Indian burial grounds, other human burial grounds, ceremonial earthworks, historical materials, and/or other archeological sites that are protected by federal or state law. 15. LEAD PAINT DISCLOSURE. [Check one of the following] Seller represents that the dwelling was constructed on the real property in 1978 or later. Seller represents that the dwelling was constructed on the real property before 1978. (If such housing is located on the real property, attached and made a part of this Purchase Agreement is “LEAD PAINT ADDENDUM FOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTED BEFORE 1978”.) __X_ Seller represents that the lead paint disclosure is not applicable as there is no dwelling constructed on the real property. 16. METHAMPHETAMINE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. [Check one of the following:] __X_ To the best of Seller’s knowledge, methamphetamine production has not occurred on the Property. ____ To the best of Seller’s knowledge, methamphetamine production has occurred on the Property and Seller make the following disclosure: A county or local health department or sheriff [strike one] has / has not ordered that the Property or some portion of the Property is prohibited from being occupied or used until it has been assessed and remediated as provided in the Department of Health’s Clandestine Drug Labs General Clean-up Guidelines. If such order or orders have been issued complete the following statement: The above orders issued against the Property [strike one] have / have not been vacated. If such order has not been issued, state the status of removal and remediation on the Property: [Use additional sheets, if necessary.] None. 17. SELLER’S COVENANTS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Seller, as part of the consideration therefore, represents warrants, and covenants with Purchaser and its successors and assigns that to the best of Seller’s actual knowledge and without any investigation or inquiry, as follows: A. Seller has or as of the Date of Closing will have marketable and insurable title to the Property of record, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, leases, claims and charges, all material easements, rights-of-way, covenants, conditions, and restrictions and any other matters affecting the title, except for the Permitted Exceptions. Seller has the present full authority and power to execute this Agreement, and on or prior to the Date of Closing, Seller shall have the full authority and power to close the sale of the Property. B. To Seller’s actual knowledge, the conveyance of the Property pursuant hereto will not violate any applicable statute, ordinance, governmental restriction or regulation, or any private restriction or agreement. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 10 5 C. As of the Date of Closing, there will be no outstanding or unpaid claims, actions or causes of action related to any transaction or obligation entered into or incurred by Seller with respect to the Property prior to the date hereof. D. Except as provided herein, Seller shall indemnify and defend Purchaser and otherwise hold Purchaser harmless of, from and against any broker who may be entitled to any commission or finder’s fee in connection with the transaction contemplated herein to the extent arising from Seller’s actions. E. Seller is not a foreign person as defined in § 1445(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or regulations issued thereunder. F. To Seller’s actual knowledge, there is no action, litigation, investigation, or other proceedings of any kind, other than condemnation, pending or threatened against Seller with respect to the Property. G. The Purchaser intended to take possession of the Property pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 and St. Louis City Park City Council Resolution via a “quick-take.” The Purchaser filed a petition for the taking of property through eminent domain in Hennepin County Court file no. 27-CV-19-19637. H. The Purchaser and the Seller acknowledge that they reached this negotiated purchase in lieu of the Purchaser taking the Property through eminent domain. Due to the manner of acquisition of this Property, the Purchaser is not a responsible person for the purposes of Minnesota Chapter 115B pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115B.03, subd. 5(a). I. To Seller’s actual knowledge, and except for normal quantities of Hazardous Materials customarily found in office/warehouse facilities similar to the Property and the buildings adjacent to the Property, and except for conditions that have been disclosed or would be disclosed if Purchaser had conducted or did conduct an environmental assessment of the Property: (i) no toxic materials, hazardous wastes or hazardous substances, as such terms are defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1996, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.) or in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.), including, without limitation, any asbestos or asbestos-related products or materials or pesticides ("Hazardous Materials") have been generated, treated, stored, released, or disposed of or otherwise placed, deposited in or located on the Property; and (ii) the Property is free of Hazardous Materials and is not subject to any “superfund” type liens or claims by governmental regulatory agencies or third parties arising from the release or threatened release of hazardous substances in, on, or about the Property. Seller shall indemnify and hold Purchaser harmless from any and all claims, causes of action, damages, losses, or costs (including reasonable lawyer’s fees) relating to breach of the foregoing representations and warranties by Seller. These warranties and indemnifications shall survive the delivery of the Warranty Deed. The covenants, representations, and warranties contained in this Section shall be deemed to benefit Purchaser and its successors and assigns and shall survive any termination or expiration of this Purchase Agreement or the delivery of the Warranty Deed. All of Seller’s covenants, representations and warranties in this Agreement shall be materially true as of the date hereof and of the Closing Date, and shall be a condition precedent to the performance of Purchaser's obligations hereunder. If Purchaser discovers that any such covenant, representation, or warranty is not true, Purchaser may elect prior to Closing, in addition to any of its other rights and remedies, City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 11 6 to cancel this Agreement, or Purchaser may postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time for correction. If Purchaser elects to proceed with the Closing following such discovery, Purchaser shall be deemed to have waived its rights to assert a claim against Seller arising from the inaccuracy or untruthfulness of any such covenant, representation, or warranty. Seller indemnifies Purchaser from any breaches of the covenants, warranties, and representations set forth in this Section. 18. CLOSING. The closing (the "Closing") of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement shall occur at a location designated by Purchaser, and shall occur on or before March _______, 2020 (“Closing Date”). At closing, Seller and Purchaser shall disclose their Social Security Numbers or Federal Tax Identification Numbers for the purposes of completing state and federal tax forms. 19. CLOSING DOCUMENTS. A. At the Closing, Seller shall execute and/or deliver to Purchaser the following: (1) Warranty Deed. A Warranty Deed in recordable form and reasonably satisfactory to Purchaser, which shall include the following well representations: “Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described Property.” (2) Seller’s Affidavit. A standard form affidavit by Seller indicating that on the date of Closing there are, to Seller’s actual knowledge, no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments, tax liens or bankruptcies against or involving Seller or the Property; that, to Seller’s actual knowledge, there has been no skill, labor or material furnished to the Property for which payment has not been made or for which mechanic's liens could be filed; and that, to Seller’s actual knowledge, there are no other unrecorded interests in the Property. (3) Non-Foreign Person Certification. A certification in form and content satisfactory to the parties hereto and their counsel, properly executed by Seller, containing such information as shall be required by the Internal Revenue Code, and the regulations issued there under, in order to establish that Seller is not a “foreign person” as defined in § 1445(f)(3) of such Code and such regulations. (4) Storage Tanks. An affidavit with respect to storage tanks pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.48. (5) Well Certificate. If there is a well located on the Property, a well disclosure certificate in form and substance true to form for recording. (6) Certification. A certification that the representations and/or warranties made by Seller is materially the same as were in existence on the date of this Agreement or noting any changes thereto; and (7) Relocation Waiver. A fully executed copy of the Relocation Waiver. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 12 7 (8) Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by either party or the title insurance company to be necessary to transfer and provide title insurance for the Property. B. At the Closing, Purchaser shall execute and/or deliver to Seller the following: (1) Payment. Payment of the Purchase Price. (2) Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by either party or the title insurance company to be necessary to transfer and provide title insurance for the Property. 20. CLOSING COSTS. The costs relating to the closing of this transaction shall be paid as follows: A. Purchaser shall pay: (1) Recording fee for the Warranty Deed; (2) The state deed tax; (3) Conservation fee attributable to the Warranty Deed; (4) The closing fees charged by the Title Company; (5) All costs of obtaining a title insurance commitment; (6) Taxes; and (7) All costs of the title commitment and premium for owner’s title insurance. 21. ADDITIONAL TERMS. A. Purchaser’s Contingencies. Purchaser’s obligations under this Agreement are contingent upon Purchaser’s satisfaction with each of the following (“Purchaser’s Contingencies”): (1) The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in this Agreement must be true as of the date of this Agreement and on the Closing Date, and Seller shall have delivered to Purchaser at Closing a certificate dated the Closing Date, signed by Seller, certifying that such representations and warranties are true as of the Closing Date. (2) Purchaser determining on or before the Closing Date, that it is satisfied, in its sole discretion, with the results of matters disclosed by a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed by Braun Intertec Corporation or by any additional environmental/engineering investigation or testing of the Property performed by Purchaser or Purchaser's agent. By executing this Agreement, Seller hereby authorizes Purchaser to enter upon the Property at reasonable times after reasonable notice to conduct the investigations and/or tests described herein. (3) Purchaser determining that it is satisfied with the title to the Property. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 13 8 If the Purchaser’s Contingencies have not been satisfied on or before the Closing Date, then Purchaser may, at Purchaser’s option, (a) terminate this Agreement in which case the parties will have no further rights, duties or obligations hereunder, except those obligations that expressly survive termination, or (b) waive any such unsatisfied contingency, without reduction in the amount of the Purchase Price, and proceed to Closing. The contingencies set forth in this section are for the sole and exclusive benefit of Purchaser, and Purchaser shall have the right to waive the contingencies by giving notice to Seller. 22. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall not be assigned without approval of the non- assigning party. 23. NOTICES. All notices required herein shall be in writing and considered to have been duly given if sent by first class certified mail to the address as set forth above, or to such other address as such party may hereafter designate by written notice to the other party. Notices given by certified mail shall be effective two (2) business days after their postmark. 24. NO WAIVER. The waiver by one party of the performance of any covenant or condition hereunder shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considered to be a waiver by such party of any other covenant or condition hereunder. The waiver by any or all of the parties of the time for performing any action shall not constitute a waiver of the time for performing any other act or identical act required to be performed at a later time. The exercise of any remedy provided by law and the provisions of this Agreement of any remedy shall not exclude other remedies unless they are expressly excluded. 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the transaction hereinabove set forth and may not be amended or modified in whole or in part except with the consent of both of the parties hereto in writing. 26. MINNESOTA LAW. This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 27. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for all provisions of this Purchase Agreement. 28. SIGNATURES BY COUNTERPART; FASCIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Signatures may be transmitted via facsimile or in “PDF” format via e-mail. [Signature to follow on next page.] City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 14 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Purchaser and Seller have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above. PURCHASER: CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK By: _______________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Melissa Kennedy, Clerk SELLER: QUEST PROPERTIES, INC. By: ________________________________ Peter T. Kinney Its President and CEO City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 15 EXHIBIT A TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property: All that part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and 30 feet West of the West line of the East 1/8 of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8 and the Northerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway; thence North along said described parallel line 160 feet; thence West at right angles 270 feet; thence South parallel to above described parallel line to the Northerly right of way line of said Railroad; thence Northeasterly along said right of way line to the point of beginning. Being described as beginning at the intersection of a line run parallel with and distant 30 feet west of the west line of the East 1/8 of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8 with the northerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway; thence north along said described parallel line a distance of 47.00 feet; thence west at right angles a distance of 270 feet; thence south parallel with the above described parallel line to the northerly right of way line of said Railroad; thence northeasterly along said right of way line to the point of beginning. GP:4851-1218-4246 v1 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 16 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 17 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 18 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 19 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 20 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 21 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 22 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 23 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 24 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 25 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 26 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 27 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 28 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 29 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 30 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Approve right of way purchase – Dakota bikeway and bridge project – (4019-2000)Page 31 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2020 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Recommended actions: • Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 5 affirmative votes); and • Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Cedar Place Addition (requires 4 affirmative votes); and • Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding resolutions 1953 and 1988 relating to property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road (requires 4 affirmative votes); and • Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 16 to the zoning code and amending the zoning map from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to PUD 16, and set the second reading for April 20, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) Policy consideration: Does the proposed redevelopment meet the city’s affordable housing and neighborhood development goals? Does council approve waiving the 2-acre minimum requirement for a planned unit development (PUD)? Does council approve allowing >5/8-inch thick fiber cement panel as a class I material in the proposed PUD zoning district? Summary: Patrick Crowe requests the city approvals listed above in order to construct a new 79-unit apartment development on property located at 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road. The development would meet the city’s inclusionary housing and green building policies. Construction would start in spring 2020 and open for leasing in fall 2021. As part of the developer’s request, council is asked to waive the 2-acre minimum requirement for a PUD and to allow >5/8-inch thick fiber cement panel as a class I material for this development. The planning commission held a public hearing on February 5, 2020, at which time several people testified both for and against the applications. The commission unanimously recommended approval of all applications. Financial or budget considerations: The developer applied for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance in the amount of $500,000 to defray a portion of its extraordinary expenses. Staff and Ehlers, the financial consultant for the economic development authority (EDA), will bring a recommendation to the EDA in the next month. Staff recommend collecting $118,500 in park dedication fees in-lieu of park land, and $17,775 in trail dedication fees. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion, comprehensive plan amendment resolution, preliminary and final plat resolution, draft PUD ordinance, resolution rescinding previous resolutions, planning commission minutes, resident email comments, letter from Luther Company, online petition, letter from City of Golden Valley, official exhibits Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Discussion Background: Patrick Crowe requests city approvals for a comprehensive plan amendment, planned unit development (PUD), and preliminary and final plat in order to construct a new apartment development called “The Quentin” at 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road. The comprehensive plan amendment would re-guide one of the parcels from office (OFC) to high density residential (RH). The proposed plat would combine three previously unplatted parcels into one new parcel. The zoning map and zoning text amendments would rezone the property from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to a new PUD district. Site information: 4900 Cedar Lake Road 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Site area (acres): 1.05 Current uses: office, single family house, garage and outdoor storage Surrounding land uses: North: single family residential Neighborhood: Cedarhurst East: multi-family residential South: multi-family residential and office West: commercial Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning OFC- office RH - high density residential R-C high-density multiple-family residence Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning RH - high density residential PUD planned unit development The comprehensive plan amendment would re-guide one of the parcels from OFC office to RH high density Residential. The proposed plat would combine three previously unplatted parcels into one new parcel. The zoning map and zoning text amendments would rezone the property from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to a new PUD district. 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road has a variance and special permit recorded on the property (Resolutions 1953 and 1988). As part of the approval process, staff recommend city council rescind these previous resolutions if the council approves the current applications. The applicant proposes a new 79-unit residential building with 5 stories of apartments and two levels of structured parking. The new parcel will have frontage on Old Cedar Lake Road, Quentin Avenue South and Cedar Lake Road. The developer intends to start construction in spring 2020 and open for leasing in fall 2021. Inclusionary housing policy: In 2019, city council amended the inclusionary housing policy to require any residential development that requires a comprehensive plan amendment or a planned unit development rezoning to adhere to the city’s inclusionary housing policy. The policy requires the overall development provide a certain percentage of affordable units based on area median income (AMI). The required breakdown is 20% of units at 60% AMI, 10% of units at 50% AMI, or 5% of units at 30% AMI. The developer can choose which percentage of affordability they would like to provide. The total number of new units in the development is 79. The developer is electing to provide 10% of the units at 50% AMI, which requires the creation of 8 affordable units at 50% AMI. The unit mix of the affordable units will match the unit mix of the overall apartment building. Green building policy: The building will adhere to the city’s green building policy. In addition, the development would include the following sustainability features: • Rooftop solar array to offset common area electricity. • Green roof on the east side of the parking pedestal. • Landscaping with no-mow grass, native plants, shade trees and drought/salt-tolerant landscaping. • Local and sustainable building materials will be sourced as available. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment • Over 75% of materials left on 4900 Cedar Lake Road were recycled when the developer took over ownership. • Deconstruction of brick, stone ladders, scaffolding plank and other construction tools. • Architectural design principles including daylighting and natural ventilation. • Individual unit meters, so tenants can opt into green energy programs like solar or wind with Xcel Energy. • Energy efficient building systems including LED lighting with motion sensors in common areas, smart thermostats, high-efficiency HVAC, low-flow showers, dual flush toilets, reflective blinds, energy star appliances, in-home WiFi switches, ventless dryers, house hot water (rather than individual water heaters) and Low-E glass. • In addition to electric vehicle charging stations, the developer is exploring providing charging for electric scooters. Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city: A. Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Land Use Map for 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from office (OFC) to high density residential (RH). B. Approve a preliminary and final plat to combine the three parcels for development. C. Amend the zoning map and zoning text to rezone the subject properties from R-C high- density multiple-family residence to PUD planned unit development. Comprehensive plan amendment: A request for amending the city’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long-range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. The amendment may be evaluated independently of the development proposal against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject properties. The amendment alone does not permit the proposed development but it is one step in the approvals process. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The applicant requests a change to the future land use designation of 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from office (OFC) to high density residential (RH). This request would allow residential development at a density of 75 units per acre, which is considered high density in the Comprehensive Plan. The current land use guidance on the three properties would allow densities of 75 units per acre on 4900 Cedar Lake Road and 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 125 units per acre on 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road. This current guidance would allow up to 95 units on the overall site. The proposed land guidance sets the density for all parcels to 75 units an acre, which allows up to 79 units on the overall site. The office land use designation is primarily intended for employment centers of intensive office and mixed-use development with high floor area ratios and building heights. Given the small size of the 5005 parcel (0.23 acres), it would be extremely difficult for an office building to be constructed on the site that fulfills the requirements of the office land use designation. Re- guiding the 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road parcel from office to high density residential decreases the maximum density allowed on the parcel, brings the parcel into alignment with both the other parcels in the proposed development as well as the residential densities allowed on the commercial parcel to the west, and allows development on the site that matches the proposed City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment land use guidance. Below is a map showing the area of interest from the comprehensive plan future land use map and proposed change. General consistency with the comprehensive plan. The city’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the comprehensive plan. Staff identified the following goals that may be applicable to this application. Livable communities goal #1. Provide attractive public streets, spaces and facilities that contribute to creating connections, a strong sense of community and opportunities for community interaction. D. Provide pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connect key departure points and destinations throughout the city and require installation of identified connections during the redevelopment process. Livable communities goal #2: Promote building and site design that creates a connected, human scale, multi-modal, and safe environment for people who live and work here. A. Encourage quality design in new construction such as building orientation, scale, massing and pedestrian access. Residential land use goal #1. Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase housing choices, including affordable housing, and increase the viability of neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment B. Promote and support the development of medium and high-density residential land uses near commercial centers and nodes. C. Ensure that new and redeveloped medium and high-density residential land uses are located within walking distance of transit and commercial services. Housing goal #3: multi-family. The city is committed to promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations, including near transit centers, retail and employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts. A. Promote high-quality architectural design in the construction of new multi-family developments. Housing goal #4: residential rental housing. The city is committed to creating, preserving and improving the city’s rental housing stock. B. Minimize the involuntary displacement of people of color, indigenous people and vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, the elderly and people with disabilities from their communities as neighborhoods grown and change. Housing goal #6: affordable housing. The city is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households B. Ensure affordable housing is disbursed throughout the city and not concentrated in any one area. Climate and energy goal #1. Pursue the 2040 Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals to reduce greenhouse gases that are either emitted within the city’s boundary or emitted indirectly through the purchase of electricity or other energy sources: C. Promote and support updating of the city’s green building policy and expand the number of new and renovated buildings that are constructed to achieve the green building policy standards. Approving the comprehensive plan land use map amendment will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The general area of the development is a mix of uses, including commercial, office, and multi-family and single-family residences. The property is nearby the West End area, which is one of the densest areas in St. Louis Park both in housing, employment, shopping, entertainment and services. The West End area of the city is primarily guided OFC office, which allows for higher densities than the RH designation. The request to change the future land use designation to high density residential is consistent with the other properties in the development, the adjacent property to the east, and nearby properties to the south and northwest. Availability of infrastructure. Water and sewer: City engineering and operations staff have reviewed the proposed development and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. Traffic: While evaluating the initial planning applications, and based on planning commission’s recommendation, city engineering and community development staff have reviewed the City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment proposed development and completed a preliminary traffic analysis of trips generated by the development. The following is a summary of this analysis. The table below provides daily and peak hour trip generation data using two trusted data sources. Time Period Tripgeneration.org ITE Trip Gen. Data, 10 Ed. AM Peak (7-9 am) 28.44 25.28 PM Peak (4-6 pm) 35.55 32.39 Daily Total 347.6 429.76 This analysis does not specify distribution of daily trips onto neighboring roads, so the total number of trips on any individual road would be less than the daily total. Presently, Cedar Lake Road west of Quentin Avenue has 12,900 daily trips, and Quentin Avenue between Old Cedar Lake Road and Cedar Lake Road has 8,800 daily trips. Using the more conservative estimate from and comparing to traffic on Quentin today, the proposed apartment building would increase the number of daily trips by less than 5%. City staff concluded the street network has capacity to accommodate the proposal, the development will have little impact to the transportation network, the impact does not warrant changes to the surrounding street network, and a more comprehensive traffic analysis is not needed. Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood. Removal of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the parcels will change the character of the property. This development is similar in scale and density to previously approved developments in the West End area, the densities allowed in adjacent properties, and it is adjacent to existing multi-family residential property. While the scale of the development is greater than nearby single-family houses, it is in alignment with the recommended densities of current land use guidance. Additionally, this development will construct a trail connection which will improve bike and pedestrian facilities for the surrounding neighborhood and ties into other future trail improvements planned in the area. Staff finds the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan support reguiding this property to high density residential (RH). Preliminary and final plat analysis: The applicant seeks preliminary and final plat approval to combine three previously unplatted lots into one parcel. Lots: The subdivision will create one 1.05-acre lot for multiple family residential use. Right of way dedication: The plat dedicates 9,660 square feet of road right of way to Cedar Lake Road. Sidewalks: The city’s subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks along all parcel lines abutting public right-of-way when platting a property. New 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be installed along Old Cedar Lake Road, and the existing sidewalk would be preserved along Cedar Lake Road. A new 10-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian trail would be installed along Quentin City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Avenue. This trail will connect a future trail planned in Golden Valley to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail. Access to the regional trail is approximately 1/3-mile east of the site. Park and trail dedication: The 2020 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication fee at $1,500 per dwelling unit and the residential trail dedication fee at $225 per dwelling units. All three existing parcels have not been previously platted, so the city may collect park and trail dedication fees for each lot. Typically, the park and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) makes recommendations on the park and trail dedication; however, the PRAC did not meet due to the health pandemic. In order to respond to the application in a timely manner and within State-mandated deadlines, staff recommends proceeding without the PRAC recommendation and accept $118,500 in park dedication fees and $17,775 in trail dedication fees. Staff find the preliminary and final plat meet city requirements. PUD analysis: The developer requests approval of a preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD). A PUD is a rezoning and zoning text amendment that established the regulations for a specific property. The site is currently zoned R-C high-density multiple-family residence. A PUD rezoning would allow the following changes to dimensional requirements from the existing zoning district: • An increase in density from 50 units/acre to 75 units/acre; • An increase in the allowed ground floor area ratio (GFAR) from 0.25 to 0.61; • An increase in the allowed floor area ratio (FAR) from 1.20 to 2.15; and • Reduced front, side and rear yards. While the PUD would allow an increase in residential density, current land use guidance allows the density requested by the developer. The building meets the R-C zoning district building height maximum. The site does not meet the 2-acre minimum for a PUD request; however, the city council may waive this requirement. Staff and planning commission support the use of a PUD zoning for this property as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and advances the city’s climate action and inclusionary housing goals. Below is a map showing the area of interest from the city zoning map and proposed change. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Building and site design analysis. Cedar Place meets the PUD ordinance goals for building and site design. The ordinance requires the city to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. Staff find the plan meets this requirement. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. Staff find this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This criteria will be met. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The applicant will install solar panels on the roof to offset common area electricity. A green roof will also be installed on the east side of the parking pedestal. Staff find this criteria will be met. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment (5) A PUD shall comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The applicant proposes offering 10% of the units at 50% area median income (AMI). This criteria will be met. Zoning analysis. The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a planned unit development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table. Factor Required Proposed Met? Lot area 2.0 acres minimum 1.05 Pending council approval Setbacks None with PUD Front: 8.4 feet Side (street): 10 feet Side (interior): 10.3 feet Rear: 8 feet Yes Building materials Minimum of 60% Class 1 materials 44% - 61.6%; or 84.2% - 100%, if an alternate material is allowed; see below. Pending council approval Ground floor area ratio None with PUD 0.61 Yes Floor area ratio None with PUD 2.15 Yes Uses. Cedar Place is a multi-family residential development that includes studio, 1-bedroom, 1- bedroom + den, and 2-bedroom units. The breakdown of unit type by site is as follows: Unit Type Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Studio 14 14 One bedroom 23 23 One bedroom + den 28 28 Two bedroom 14 28 Total 79 93 The building will include the following community spaces: a bicycle hub with wall racks, a repair station, and drinking water facilities; outdoor patio at the building lobby entrance; maker space; yoga/meditation room; outdoor amenity deck with year-round sauna; and indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge. Neighboring uses. The Fiat dealership (1820 Quentin Avenue South) is located west and across the street from the proposed development site. The site is zoned C-2 general commercial and was granted a conditional use permit in 2013. One of the conditions of vehicle sales in the C-2 district is, "The storage lot shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers." Staff's analysis indicates eight of the parking stalls in the Fiat dealership lot are within 100 feet of the subject property. Five of the eight parking stalls are used as sales inventory area (storage lot) City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment based on the official exhibits for the conditional use permit. The change in use of the subject property from office to residential would create a non-conformity on the Fiat dealership. The dealership would be considered a legal, nonconforming use and allowed to continue to display vehicles as is, because the use was legally established. Luther Company, the owner of the Fiat dealership, has submitted a letter to the city stating they are not opposed to the project, but have concerns around the possible non-conformity and potential issues with future residents. Please see the attached letter at the end of this report. Architectural design. The applicant requests the city council allow >5/8-inch fiber cement panel (Nichiha) be considered a class I material. This material is currently classified as class II per the zoning ordinance. However, this material has been approved as a class I material for other buildings in the city, including in the PLACE Via Sol development. Staff recommends allowing >5/8-inch thick fiber cement panel as a class I material for this development. The plan will comply with the city’s architectural material standards of a minimum of 60% class I materials on all facades of the building if >5/8-inch thick fiber cement panel is approved as a class I material. Other class I materials included in the development include brick, glass and stucco which cover 44% - 61.6% of the building elevations. The upper level of structured parking is designed to be converted to housing or retail if in the future parking demand on the site reduces and fewer parking spaces are required. Height. The building is six stories and 72 feet in height. The site slopes from north to south so the building is five stories and 55 feet above ground on the north property line on Old Cedar Lake Road. Vehicular parking. City code requires 93 parking spaces based on one parking space per bedroom, with up to 10% of those spaces designated for guest parking. The plans provide 107 spaces in two levels of structured parking and 5 spaces in a small surface lot to the east of the building. Guest parking is in the surface lot and in select parking stalls in the parking garage. The development complies with the city’s parking ordinance. Electric vehicle parking. City code requires nine level 1 and one level 2 electric vehicle charging stations based on the number of vehicular parking spaces. The plan provides 10 level 1 charging stations on the lower parking level and one level 2 charging station in the surface level parking lot. The development complies with the city’s electric vehicle parking ordinance. Bicycle parking. City code requires 89 bicycle parking spaces and the plan provides 112 bicycle parking spaces in wall-mounted racks, the bicycle room on the ground floor and exterior bicycle racks. Landscaping. City code requires 79 trees and 474 shrubs based on the number of dwelling units. The plan provides 73 canopy trees and 22 ornamental trees for a total of 84 trees, which meets the code requirement. The plan provides 124 shrubs which is a shortfall of 350 shrubs. The developer proposes the following alternative landscaping features to make up the shortfall: • 7,000 square feet of pollinator grass plantings • 8,000 square feet of no-mow grass plantings • 1,971 native perennial flower and grass plantings City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Tree preservation & replacement. The proposed site plan preserves all existing boulevard trees along Quentin Avenue South and Old Cedar Lake Road. The landscape plan meets city requirements for tree replacement, which is calculated based on the number of caliper inches of trees removed and planted. Designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). There is no minimum DORA requirement for planned unit developments. The plan provides the following spaces for a total of 13.3% site area of DORA: an outdoor patio on the ground floor, an amenity deck on the second floor above the parking pedestal, and an indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge. Neighborhood meeting. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 23, 2020. About 10 residents were in attendance. Some of the residents were concerned about parking, traffic, and the effect of the development on property values. Other residents were fully supportive of the project. Planning commission meeting. Planning commission held a public hearing on the applications on February 5, 2020. Seventeen residents spoke on the project, four were in favor and thirteen against. The main concerns raised by residents included increase traffic, both along Cedar Lake Road and in the surrounding neighborhood; guest parking and overflow into the neighborhood; the scale and height of the proposed building in relation to the nearby single family homes; pedestrian safety; and notification about the project from the city and developer to residents. Residents in support of the project spoke about redeveloping a blighted site and satisfaction with the proposed plans. Planning commissioners discussed current traffic conditions around the site and coordination with Golden Valley. Both the developer and city staff have been in communication with city of Golden Valley staff. All property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development were notified by mail of the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. Legal notices were published in the official newspaper regarding the hearing. Information was shared through NextDoor and the city website. A “proposed development” sign with contact information was posted on the property. Notifications regarding the proposal met State Statute and city code requirements and included additional efforts beyond those minimum requirements. Approximately 50 people attended the hearing. Planning commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of all applications and directed staff to provide more traffic analysis for city council’s consideration. The calculations of the projected daily and peak hours trips and the context of the traffic volumes on nearby major streets were included in this report to address the planning commission’s direction. Additional public feedback. The city has received several emails commenting on the project, both before and after the public hearing. Residents also started an online petition in opposition to the project which includes three main concerns: scale of development, increased traffic and on-street parking, and setting a precedent for future development. The petition asks for three actions from city council: perform a comprehensive traffic study, reject the PUD request, and invest in infrastructure of the neighborhood to help offset the impacts of past and future development. Please see the attached emails and petition. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment City of Golden Valley staff are exploring traffic calming and mitigation strategies in the South Tyrol neighborhood, north of the project site. City of St. Louis Park staff are following these activities, which are independent of these applications. The City of Golden Valley submitted a letter to the community development department asking staff give thoughtful consideration to resident concerns regarding the potential traffic impacts of the project. Please see the attached letter. Recommendations: Planning commission and city staff recommend approval of the Cedar Place Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing future land use designation of the properties from office (OFC) to high density residential (RH). Planning commission and staff recommend approval of Cedar Place Addition preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. Planning commission and staff recommend approval of the resolution rescinding previous approvals for a variance and special use permit on 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road. Planning commission and staff recommend approval of the Cedar Place preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the following conditions, which would be incorporated in the planning development agreement: 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. c. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the city's assent form and the official exhibits. b. A planning development contract shall be executed between the developer and city that addresses, at a minimum: i. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. ii. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks and boulevards. iii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (sidewalks and City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment boulevards), and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iv. The developer shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. i. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute said planning development contract. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the city engineer for review and approval. d. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All city noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The city shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the city engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: a. Public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 8. A sign permit shall be submitted for city approval if new signage is proposed on the site. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. 9. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Next steps: If approved, the city council would hold a second reading of the PUD ordinance on April 20. Staff and the EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers, will bring a recommendation to the EDA in the next month. The comprehensive plan amendment would be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and authorization to place the plan amendment into effect. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution supporting the approval of an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 for the property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2019; and Whereas, the use of said Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and Whereas, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and Whereas, said Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government; and Whereas, said Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of an amendment to said Plan on February 5, 2020; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 19-36-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; and Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of St. Louis Park that said Plan, as previously adopted by the City Council, is hereby amended as follows and as shown in the attached exhibits: Change the future land use designation for the property at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road (PID: 30-029-24-34-0004) from OFC – Office to RH – High Density Residential, and Changes to the text, tables and figures within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan document as shown in the attachments to reflect updates to city forecasts and development phasing based on the change in land use; changes within the document are found on the following pages: 5-126 and 5-129. City staff are instructed to submit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment 5-126: Figure 5-5. 2040 Future Land Use Plan City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment 5-129: Table 5.2 2040 Future Land Use Plan Future Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres % Net RL - Low Density Residential 2,520.67 2,484.21 35.96% RM - Medium Density Residential 400.25 383.99 5.56% RH – High Density Residential 215.89 216.21 207.25 207.57 3.00% MX - Mixed Use 21.58 21.58 0.31% TOD - Transit Oriented Development 81.76 81.76 1.18% COM - Commercial 277.97 277.64 4.02% OFC - Office 232.31 231.99 215.16 214.84 3.11% BP - Business Park 103.81 103.65 1.50% IND - Industrial 244.41 206.23 2.99% CIV - Civic 216.29 210.70 3.05% PRK - Park and Open Space 916.67 557.54 8.07% ROW - Right of Way 1,517.14 1,508.78 21.84% RRR - Railroad 159.98 150.81 2.18% Water/Wetlands - 499.45 7.23% Total 6,908.74 6,908.74 100.00% City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Cedar Place Addition 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, Crowe Companies, LLC, owner of land proposed to be platted as Cedar Place Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Whereas, legal notice was published in the official newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing regarding the application; Whereas, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 6, 2020, and the commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the application with conditions; Whereas, City Code section 26-158(c) requires the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding accepting cash- in-lieu of land for park dedication. In response to the pandemic, Governor’s Order 20-20 and City Council Resolution 20-066, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission did not hold a meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding park dedication for the current application. Based on Resolution 20-066 and the City’s desire to provide efficient and ongoing services, city staff recommended the City Council adopt city staff’s recommendation regarding park dedication; Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Cedar Place Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the city to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. b. A planning development contract shall be executed between the city and developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks and boulevards. ii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iii. The applicant shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. iv. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the planning development contract. c. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $118,500 and trail dedication fee of $17,775 for residential uses. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. The city’s assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. e. All necessary permits shall be obtained. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 21 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements and landscaping. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 22 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS That port of the West 522 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, tying South of Cedar Lake Road and North of County Road No. 16 and Easterly of a line parallel and 40 feet Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the center lines of said Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 73 degrees 40 minutes with the center line of said Cedar Lake Road for 400 feet and there terminating. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 522 feet East of the Southwest comer thereof; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 163.9 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Easterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 87 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 100 feet to an intersection with a line parallel with and distant 622 feet East of the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North and parallel with the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the South line of Cedar Lake Road: thence Westerly along the South line of said road to its points of intersection with a l1'ne drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the South west Quarter; thence Southerly to the point of beginning, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principle Meridian; and that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, described as follows: Beg1'nning at a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 522 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof,· thence North parallel with the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 163.9 feet,· thence Easterly deflecting to right at an angle of 87 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 100 feet; thence Easterly 105.3 feet, more or less, to a point in a line drawn parallel with and 726 feet East of the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point being distance 194.3 feet North of the South line of said Section 30; thence South parallel with the West l1'ne of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 86.8 feet; thence Southwesterly in a straight line 237 feet, more or less, to a point in a line drawn South from the point of beginning and parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, said point being distant 21.5 feet South of the point of beginning; thence North 21.5 feet to the point beginning. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 23 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park City Code relating to zoning by creating Section 36-268-PUD 16 as a Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the property located at 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road 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. 19-37-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 16. Section 2. Section 2. The city council voted on April 6, 2020, to approve Resolution No. 20- _____ amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation for the subject property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from Office to High Density Residential. Said comprehensive plan amendment is associated with this ordinance and requires Metropolitan Council review and authorization to put it into effect. Section 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence to PUD 16: Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Place Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Section 26-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 16. (a) Development Plan. The site located on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Place Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C000 Cover Sheet 2. C100 Existing Conditions & Removals Plan 3. C200 Sediment & Erosion Control – Phase I 4. C201 Sediment & Erosion Control – Phase II 5. C300 Site Plan 6. C400 Grading Plan 7. C410 Accessible Route Plan 8. C500 Utility Plan 9. A000 Lower Level Parking Plan 10. A001 Lobby/Upper Level Parking Plan 11. A002-1 Floor Plans 12. A002-2 Floor Plan/Roof Plan 13. A003 Building Elevations 14. A004 Building Elevations 15. A005 Building Images 16. A006 Shadow Study City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 24 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment 17. A007 Designated Outdoor Recreation Area 18. L000 Tree Preservation Plan 19. L100 Landscape Plan 20. Exterior Lighting Plan The site shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street. a. A total of 107 parking spaces will be provided in structured parking. b. A total of 5 spaces will be provided in an off-street surface lot. 2. The property shall be developed with 79 residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 72 feet and six (6) stories. 4. The site shall contain a minimum of 13% designed outdoor recreation area. (b) Uses. 1. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in PUD 16: a. Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including but not limited to, the residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly room or general amenity space. 2. Accessory uses. Accessory uses are as follows: a. Home occupations are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: i. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. ii. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right- of-way. iii. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. iv. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. v. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. vi. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. vii. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. viii. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. ix. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. b. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. c. Gardens. d. Parking lots. e. Public transit stops/shelters. f. Outdoor seating, public address (PA) systems are prohibited. g. Outdoor uses and outdoor storage are prohibited. h. Accessory utility structures including: City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 25 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment i. Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii. Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii. Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. (c) Special Performance Standards 1. All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking, and screening requirements. 2. All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. 3. Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence Zoning District and shall comply with the following: a. Pylon signs shall be prohibited. 4. Fiber cement paneling a minimum of 5/8-inch thick shall be considered a class I material. 5. Awnings. a. Awnings shall be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b. Backlit awnings shall be prohibited. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council authorization of the associated comprehensive plan amendment approved by City Council Resolution 20-____ and not sooner than May 8, 2020. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2020 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 April 6, 2020 Second reading April 20, 2020 Date of publication April 30, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect Upon Metropolitan Council authorization of the associated comprehensive plan amendment and no sooner than February 28, 2020. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 26 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ A resolution rescinding Resolutions 1953 and 1988 relating to a variance and special permit for property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, on January 7, 2020 Patrick Crowe on behalf of Crowe Companies LLC filed an application seeking a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), which requires zoning map and zoning text amendments to create a new PUD that replaces the existing resolutions regulating the property at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road and legally described in Exhibit “A” (“Subject Property”); and Whereas, St. Louis Park City Council Resolution 1953 granted a side yard width variance to the Subject Property on November 27, 1961 (Case No. 61-94-VAR); and Whereas, St. Louis Park City Council Resolution 1988 granted a special use permit for an office building to the subject property on January 22, 1962 (Case No. 61-104-SP); Whereas, notice of a public hearing on the PUD was mailed to all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property; and Whereas, on February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the PUD; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed PUD including comments and exhibits; Now therefore be it resolved that Resolutions 1953 and 1988 are hereby rescinded upon the effective date of Ordinance No. _______ as the buildings and uses for which they were approved will cease and be replaced with a new use and development on the property. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020. Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 27 Title: Cedar Place redevelopment EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION That port of the West 522 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, tying South of Cedar Lake Road and North of County Road No. 16 and Easterly of a line parallel and 40 feet Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the center lines of said Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 73 degrees 40 minutes with the center line of said Cedar Lake Road for 400 feet and there terminating. Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Minutes: 4h OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 5, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston - Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Eckholm STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of November 20, December 4, December 18, 2019 and January 8, 2020. Commissioner Beneke made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case Nos: 20-01-ZA Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor, stated the city attorney has advised this issue should be handled in the city licensing code rather than the zoning code; therefore, staff recommend the item be tabled indefinitely and proceed to the city council for a public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Beneke seconded, recommending tabling the item. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. B.Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Applicant: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC Case Nos: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner, presented the staff report. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 28 The applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) subject to conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Kramer stated the area is at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road, Old Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue South east of Highway 100. She noted the proposal is The Quentin with 79 dwelling units, including a mix of studio, one, one + den and two- bedroom units, two-levels of structured parking, vehicular access off Cedar Lake Road, and a new trail connection. Ms. Kramer stated that because tax increment financing (TIF), comprehensive plan amendment and planned unit development are being requested, the development would include 10% of units affordable at 50% of area median income (AMI) in compliance with the city’s inclusionary housing policy. She noted the upper floor of the parking structure have been designed so they could, at a later date, be transformed into retail space or additional housing units, if parking demands decrease and/or the city ever allows higher residential densities in this area in the future. Ms. Kramer stated the first request tonight is to change the future land use classification of 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from office to high density residential. Ms. Kramer explained comprehensive plan goals that are met by this development, including residential land goals, housing goals and affordable housing, and meets green standards. She stated the amendment is one step in the approval process. Ms. Kramer stated the second request is for a preliminary and final plat. She explained that the applicant proposes combining three parcels into one. Ms. Kramer explained the new parcel will contain standard drainage and utility easements, sidewalks in the area will be preserved and a new ten-foot sidewalk/bike trail will be added. Staff recommend the city collect park and trail dedication fees in lieu of park land. The parks and recreation advisory commission will review this issue. Ms. Kramer explained the final request is for a preliminary and final planned unit development or PUD. A PUD is both a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment that establish the regulations for a specific property. The site is currently zoned R-C high-density multiple-family residence, and the applicant requests to create a new PUD zoning district. The site does not currently meet the 2-acre minimum for a PUD request. The city council may waive this requirement. Ms. Kramer explained staff support the use of a PUD zoning for this property as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and advances the city’s climate action goals. The applicant also requests allowing the use of more fiber cement panel (Nichiha) for the exterior of the building than the code currently allows. This material is currently classified as class II per the zoning ordinance and it is limited to 40% per building elevation. However, this material has been approved in greater amounts for other PUDs in the city including PLACE’s Via Sol development. Ms. Kramer explained staff City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 29 recommends allowing >5/8” fiber cement panel as a class I material for this development. The project meets the city’s parking requirements, including the electric vehicle service equipment and bike parking requirements. The plan includes 84 trees, pollinator, grass and native grass plantings, and provides 13% of the land area as designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). Ms. Kramer stated the building will adhere to the city’s green policies and will include the following sustainability features: a rooftop solar array, green roof, local and sustainable materials, and energy efficient building systems. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and a summary of the meeting was provided in the staff report, including concerns with parking and traffic. Ms. Kramer stated that staff recommends the chair open the public hearing, take testimony, then close the public hearing. Staff also recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final PUD. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the 10% of units at 50% AMI was a reduction . Ms. Kramer stated it’s not a reduction, because the inclusionary poli cy provides flexibility to developers to provide 20% of units at 60% AMI, 10% of units at 50% AMI, or 5% of units at 30% AMI. So, it is an issue of how the pro-forma is working out and how the developer would like to comply with the policy. Commissioner Roberson asked about the additional right-of-way at Cedar Lake Road and the history behind that. Ms. Kramer explained all the parcels in this development are unplatted, and it is common for unplatted parcels to include area in right of way. The affected portion of the property is already encumbered with an easement for the roadway. Commissioner Erwin asked where the trash would be located on the site . Ms. Kramer stated the trash room is on the lower floor of the parking and pointed this out on the site plan. She stated trash bins would be taken to the curb cut on Cedar Lake Road, and the turnaround area in the surface parking lot is designed to allow for a wide turn there. Commissioner Beneke asked if parking demand would be lesser in the future. Ms. Kramer said there are no immediate plans in the next few years to convert the parking structure to other uses. It is simply a long-range strategy to provide an adaptable building. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 30 Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. Gail Linsk, 4412 Cedar Lake Road #1, has concerns about traffic on Cedar Lake Road, which is a condensed area. She is concerned about making a left turn there into the development form Cedar Lake Road and if car waiting to turn into the development will make traffic back up into the intersection and create traffic congestion. She added there is not a lot of parking on Cedar Lake Road, so she has concerns about overflow parking. She asked if Old Cedar Lake Road could have a driveway that might allow for entrances and exits. Craig Aizman, 4225 West 25th Street, stated he grew up in St. Louis Park and has seen a lot of growth in this area. He stated this area has been a blighted area the past few years, so it will be good to see this development go in and he is happy this area will be rejuvenated. Jessica Duplessi, 1632 Princeton Avenue, has concerns about traffic with the frontage road and the West End area. She is concerned about the small number of guest parking spots and asked where folks will park. She stated her street is adjacent to the property and will be where overflow from visitors would park. She added the taller buildings are in the West End area, and this six-story high rise will not fit with the other buildings in the Cedarhurst neighborhood and should be in the West End area . Evan Sundquist, 1632 Princeton Avenue, has concerns about the tall height of the building in a neighborhood of two-story homes. He is also concerned about traffic and asked if the report is based on present or future traffic. He noted 1,500 units within the West End vicinity, excluding the new development being discussed tonight, and 3,000 units in the adjacent area have recently been built. He is concerned about traffic exiting onto Hwy 100 and safety in the neighborhood. Roger McCabe, 1620 Princeton Avenue, has been in the neighborhood for 30 years. He has concerns about the extra traffic proposed in the area, and this site is also adjacent to Benilde St. Margaret’s entrance. He has concerns for the safety of children in the neighborhood and traffic back-ups. He would like to see the city come up with a policy to restrict traffic from passing through the area. Robert Lazear, 1519 Natchez Avenue, Golden Valley, stated they have lived here since 1987, and they hope to stay there. He added they are used to growth and change in the area, adding there was not good communication about this project, which is blocks from their home. They found out about the meeting tonight on Nextdoor. He stated they would like more time to look at this plan. He added this area is triangular and cars come off Hwy 100 very fast and this five-story building is being shoehorned here. He stated he did not see a coherent traffic study in the report. His neighborhood is landlocked and his concern is this development does not meet the two-acre requirement and it will loom over his neighborhood and there are only five visitor parking spots. He urged the commission to stop this project and to visit the site and ask if this makes sense for the city. He stated it is far too large of a project for this small site. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 31 Jess Anderson, 1345 Natchez Avenue South, Golden Valley, shared she is not against development and has lived in this area since the West End was developed. She stated this feels too large and invasive, and over 50% of the traffic in our area is speeding. She said it feels like the development will create a danger in her neighborhood, and it should be redone to fit the neighborhood. It will be at the end of her block and she asked the commission to think about this, adding she only found out about the project a few days ago. She asked if there is a way to keep the traffic out of the neighborhood, and have the developer create something more appropriate to the neighborhood . Daon Karpan, 1400 Natchez Avenue South, Golden Valley, has lived here for 25 years. She stated they found out about this project through Nextdoor and that is a concern. With the West End project, there was major notification and ample opportunities to give feedback. She stated the size and scale does not fit the area, and she noted a 50% traffic increase to 500 cars per day on Natchez since 2015 and speed in the neighborhood is already a problem. Additionally, she has concerns about noise. She added she is concerned this is one of many projects to be introduced in the neighborhood. Ron Hongell, 4345 Sussex Road, Golden Valley, has traffic concerns here and back-ups during rush hour. He added the attitude there will be public transportation used here will be limited, compared to the number of cars, and having five spots for guest parking is too limited. He stated there is no commuter information about how to get to the West End and the continuation of the trail does not lead to anything. Doug Broad, 1631 Princeton Avenue, Golden Valley, stated he found out about this meeting on Nextdoor and notification has been woefully inadequate. He stated parking and traffic are major concerns, along with five guest parking spots, and is terribly short- sighted. He stated during rush hour it is a nightmare, and Benilde students speed in this area. He invited the commission and the developers to stand there at 8 a.m. to see for themselves the traffic concerns. Jeff Geodort, 2537 Inglewood Avenue South, stated his concern is in seeing something much larger, like the Verge, going up, which is not pleasing or with thoughtful landscaping. He would like to see something in this space be well-thought out, and he stated he was happy with the plans presented tonight. Mark Brinkman, 4327 Alabama Avenue South, understands the concerns about traffic. He stated the area is blighted and he would like to see something in that space. He is supportive of the project. Chelsey Sondeland, 1636 Princeton Avenue, stated this is not the right project. Traffic is already a problem. Her son rides the school bus and catches the bus on the corner, with no sidewalks or stop signs, and it’s very dangerous in the dark morning, weaving between parked cars. She stated she asks drivers to not come through their area which is so overcrowded already. If it must go in then there will need to be sidewalks, lighting, signage, and a bike path that goes somewhere. She added she cannot walk to West End because it is not safe with traffic, and noted this development is not safe either. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 32 Stacy Pompiu, 1520 Natchez, Golden Valley, stated the lack of notification was disgraceful for the neighbors in this area. She is disappointed Golden Valley is not on par with this development yet, and they are one block from the area. She stated this is not the West End and is the east side of Hwy 100 adding this project is completely inappropriate for their neighborhood. She stated traffic will be awful on Natchez and will continue to be if this project is approved. She asked the commission to scale this back and go to the site and view it during the times of most concern. She also noted the city should partner with Golden Valley on this. Zack Locker, 4648 Cedar Lake Road, stated he is in support of this project, although does see the traffic concerns. He does not think there will be additional traffic in the area, but there should be traffic calming on Natchez. He stated five spots might be too little, but stated it is not unreasonable for folks to park on Cedar Lake Road. Karen Dorn, 2817 Quentin, stated she travels through this area quite often and feels the five-story building is out of place there, with single-family dwellings. Traffic is also a concern, stating there would be up to 125 people living there, each with their own car. She added we think folks will use bikes, but in Minnesota, we use cars, so rethink this. She stated grasses and perennials don’t do well in the winter and we have a lot of winter here, so shrubs might be better. She agreed it is a blighted area. Jon Kuskie, 1660 Princeton Avenue South, thanked city staff for their quick communication when answering his questions about the project. He stated he will live in the shadow of this project. He stated his concern is this is a re sidential neighborhood with one-story homes, and he will be right in the shadow of this five-story building. He implored the commission to rethink this and consider something else on this site. A letter from Claris Hanson, 1628 Princeton Avenue South, was read into the record. Four additional emails will be forwarded to the city. Patrick Crow stated he lives in St. Louis Park and is the owner/developer. He felt the area was blighted and he wanted to help the area. He explained guests will have access to additional parking spots inside the parking garage through special temporary key fobs, which will reduce the issues with parking, as well as street parking in the area . He added they have set the driveway as far back from the intersection as possible, to allow for as much stacking as possible. He stated he did not know about the issues with Natchez Avenue. He pointed out there are many trees they are trying to save on the site, and will also bring in native plantings where possible, as well as green space. Mr. Crow added there were questions on shading, but for spring, summer and fall, the shadowing will be less as it is pushed back and meets the city code requirements. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked the developer if Golden Valley had contacted him. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 33 Mr. Crow explained he had spoken with Golden Valley city staff and they discussed the trails, and a connection from the West End and Golden Valley for easier access for pedestrians. He stated his goal would be to think about the future and allowing for connectivity for bikers going to the lakes or commuting. He added there is a bus stop in the front of the building as well. Commissioner Dumalag asked about the change in affordable housing and asked him to comment on it. Mr. Crow stated it was an economic decision and added the units offered will be indistinguishable from the others. He stated there will be a representative mix of units throughout the building and an even distribution. He added affordable housing is important to him and he will try to meet all the goals and the intentions of the city. Commissioner Robertson appreciated Mr. Crow waited until after the public comments to make his comments. He added this is a well-thought out project and design, the orientation is fine and architecture is nice, however added it is a difficult site with existing traffic issues. Commissioner Robertson stated there will be increase in traffic on Natchez, but they won’t be big changes, and he trusts staff’s traffic analysis. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she is very familiar with this area and it can be very crazy with traffic. She stated this is a good project and it enhances that area which has looked sick for a long time. She stated it is not the project per se, whether in St. Louis Park or Golden Valley. She stated the traffic issues over time are not good but could be affecting how the residents are looking at the project. She also stated the developer connected with Golden Valley over one month ago, so the responsibility was on Golden Valley to connect with their residents. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated we don’t stop to wait for traffic studies to arrive, adding there may be a need for more conversations about traffic in the area. Mr. Walther stated the city is required to mail notices to all property owners within 500 feet and that was followed, and if that extends into Golden Valley those residents are also notified. Notice was also published in the Sun Sailor and a large sign was posted on the property announcing there was a proposed development for at least 10 days before the public hearing. The city also posts notice on Nextdoor to affected neighborhoods and contacts neighborhood leaders in organized neighborhoods in St. Louis Park. He added the efforts that went into the West End development in 2006 and 2007 went way beyond the typical area because of the massive scale of that project. He stated this is a smaller scale project, and did not rise to the level to justify a third-party consultant to conduct a traffic study. Traffic generation estimates and review was completed by the city engineering and community development staff. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 34 Commissioner Robertson stated the proposal combines the three lots in an area planned for high density residential, and there is not a lot of change with this project. He asked if anything was relaxed under the PUD process under the high-density residential zoning. Ms. Kramer stated all three parcels already allow high-density residential and if there was not a PUD, the project would have needed variances for setbacks from property lines. She noted the distance between the road and building is substantial due to the wide public right of way. In exchange for flexibility on the setback requirements, the PUD allows the city to ask for more from the developer, including compliance with the green building policy and inclusionary housing policy. Chair Kraft added this lot has been identified for higher density development, so it seems appropriate. She added the concerns about the traffic are independent of this project, and should be looked at, but this project might not be the one to use to solve the traffic concerns. Commissioner Dumalag thanked Mr. Walther for his explanation of the notification process and she is in support of the project. She stated she has some concern on ingress and egress of the project and this might be a challenge but can be up for further discussion, as well. Commissioner Erwin stated she would be interested in seeing more traffic study here, and would be interested if there could be a left -turn-only egress or ingress to help with traffic issues from the site. She added it is relevant to study traffic now and in the future in this area. Commissioner Robertson stated the commission has heard the residents’ comments, and this will not be the last action on this project; it will continue to the city council for final decision. Chair Kraft closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded, recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary and final plat and the preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and with more traffic studies of this area. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Ms. Kramer stated this will be presented to city council on April 6, 2020. 4.Other Business Commissioner Robertson moved that Commissioner Kraft be nominated to be chair, and Commissioner Dumalag be nominated to be vice chair of the commission. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded. The motion passed 6-0. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 35 5.Communications a.Next meeting agenda, February 19, we have two planned public hearings on the regular meeting agenda. i.Cedarwood Dachis Addition (plat). Proposal to subdivide the single-family lot at 4000 25th Street West into three lots ii.CUP for St. Louis Park High School to replace the existing track and field west of the school building with a synthetic turf field. The CUP is for the import and export of materials on the site iii.Study session: Staff will update commissioners on several upcoming development proposals. b.February 24 boards and commissions annual meeting. c.March 4 meeting will be a study session. Topics will include: i.Review the draft Historic Walker Lake ordinance, 6-7 p.m. We plan to hold the first part of the meeting in the Westwood Room. ii.Race equity and inclusion 101 training, 7-8:30 p.m., in the council chambers. This will be a joint meeting/training with the housing authority and environment and sustainability commission. d.Joint study session with city council. Potential dates are March 9, May 26 or June 8. We will indicate a preference for March 9. 6.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 36 From:Tim Brausen To:litrev55@yahoo.com; Jacquelyn Kramer; Karen Barton; Sean Walther; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: Proposed building project for Quentin & Old Cedar Lake Rd Date:Monday, January 27, 2020 11:21:14 AM Thank you for your comments on this matter. Our city is enhanced by residents that actively participate in our governance and share their opinions with City leaders. I assume you are commenting on the proposed Cedar Place development at 4900 Cedar Lake Road. By copy of this email I am forwarding this comment to the Community Development staff member handling this matter, Jacqueline Kramer, along with other interested parties at City Hall, so that it is part of the official record presented to the Planning Commission when this matter is scheduled for public hearing. Thanks for contacting me. Regards - Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member Telephone: 952-451-8492 Sent from my iPad On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:11 AM, Joan Hancock-Dow <litrev55@yahoo.com> wrote: 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. As a long time resident (42 years) & board member of cedar trails west Ifeel strongly that the ENTRANCE to this building should not be cedar lake rd but rather OLD Cedar Lake rd. Joan Hancock-Dow. 4833 Cedar Lake rd 612-644-2344 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 37 From:Tim Brausen To:Stacy Pampuch Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: 4900 Cedar Lake Road Redevelopment Plan Date:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:56:51 PM Thank you for your comments. Our City is enhanced by an active citizenry willing to be engaged in its management by sharing their thoughts with the staff and City Council. We will make sure your comments are included in the official record prior to Council decisions being made on this matter. As always, we’ll try to do our best in determining what the citizens of our City want and how to get it done. Regards, Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member On Feb 23, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Stacy Pampuch <stacy.pampuch@gmail.com> wrote: 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. Good morning, Councilman Brausen: I am a neighbor of your ward, just 4 doors down from the border of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. I am asking that you do not approve the proposed project known as Cedar Place/The Quentin as has been approved by your Planning Commission. I have lived at 1520 Natchez Ave S since 2012 and have observed increased traffic on my street during rush hour as the redevelopment of the West End has added more residential units. The assumption that drivers will choose Wayzata Blvd (frontage road) is just simply not the case. We have results from a traffic study done in late 2019 by the City of Golden Valley that quantifies this, with 50% of the traffic not being from the residents of Natchez Ave S. In addition, the average speed - AVERAGE - is 38 mph. This illustrates careless driving by people traveling in and out of St. Louis Park. Please observe how traffic backs up at the 3-way stop at Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Ave S as it stands now. There is a clear safety issue at this intersection and adding a residential development at that site with a single entrance/exit ON Cedar Lake Rd near Natchez Ave S is just simply poor planning. Please review the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which I spoke to the likelihood of drivers choosing to turn left and use Natchez because of the back-up. The developer admitted he had not considered that. I was floored! I am pleased that went on record and am hopeful it helped him and those reviewing this project understand this concern is very real. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 38 Also notice that the trash haulers will also be using this same single egress and will be required to do a 3-pt turn to navigate their way out. It is easy to picture garbage trucks blocking it so nobody can enter or exit, further backing up traffic on Cedar Lake Road. I am not against improving that site, but a residential project of that scale is just inappropriate. Please do not be influenced by native plantings and a fake “connection” to the bike trail as reason that this fits this site. Stacy Pampuch 612.396.9738 c City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 39 From:Claris Hanssen To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Re: Cedar Place development & Feb. 5 public hearing Date:Monday, February 24, 2020 1:58:19 PM 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. Hello, Sorry for my delayed response. Yes, adding sidewalks would help as our street currently has none. My other concern is the height of this proposed new building it would be 5-6 stories high when most houses and buildings around it are 1-2 stories. The height would block sunlight from some of the houses on my street. Lastly, there have been several apartment or condo buildings put in over the last few years, overall, this has increased the volume of people, traffic and noise to our neighborhood thus decreasing the serenity and quality of life. Thank you, Claris Hanssen Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> wrote: Good morning Claris, Thank you for submitting a letter for the Cedar Lake project public hearing last night. Several of your neighbors voiced similar concerns about traffic last night. I’d like to hear more about your concerns, so that I may fully convey them to city council. Are there specific intersections or sections of roads in your neighborhood that are problematic? Some of your neighbors also spoke of sidewalk gaps. Do you think improvements to the sidewalk network would make your neighborhood safer for your children? If you like, I can send some information on housing in St. Louis Park. Briefly, our community is facing a similar housing shortage as other cities in the metro area (as well as throughout the country). In particular, we have a large unmet demand for affordable housing. One of city council’s top priority’s is increasing the number of affordable housing units in the city. The Cedar Lake project will provide some affordable units and thus is one small part in meeting the city’s affordable housing goals. Staff and council are always cognizant of the balance needed between creating more housing and limiting the traffic and infrastructure impacts on the community. I’d like to continue this conversation if you’re interested. Please feel free to email or City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 40 call me at the number below, and I’ll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Thanks again for your letter. Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 41 From:Brian Woolsey To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:4900 Cedar Lake Road Date:Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:40:18 PM 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. I just wanted to share my viewpoint, in favor of this development, and in contradiction to the petition that is being circulated in my neighborhood to limit the size of the development. The proposal is ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly: High density developments on multi-modal transit corridors like these are precisely the sites our communities need to invest in AND why the St Louis Park 2040 plan has it slatted for High Density Residential. This is how communities reduce their carbon footprint and fight climate change. It’s not urban sprawl – it’s urbanization. The proposal is ECONOMICALLY sustainable: The increase in tax revenue on the proposed project would be tens of millions more to continue to invest in our schools. Additionally, ever wonder why the retail is only half filled at the West End? I submit it’s because the community isn’t dense enough. We all benefit from a vibrant retail scene – but we need to support the entire economic ecosystem. Sincerely, Brian Woolsey 4417 Cedar Lake Road St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 42 From:Danielle Grant To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Cedar Place Date:Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:08:04 AM 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. I’m emailing to lodge my deep concern about this proposed development. As a 20 year resident of Cedarhurst, I cannot understand how city planners or the planning commission can think the addition of an enormous apartment building on an already busy corner is a good idea. Those of us who reside at the Cedar Trails Condominiums will literally be trapped in our homes by the increased traffic at the three way stop. This will force many of us longtime homeowners and taxpayers to sell or rent out our units, dramatically transforming a stable mixed rental and owner community into a transitory rental neighborhood. I honestly believe the concerns of my neighborhood are being ignored because the housing values are not as high as other areas in SLP. This is unacceptable. Danielle Grant 4518 Cedar Lake Road #5 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 43 From:Sean Walther To:North Nowhere Subject:Re: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Date:Saturday, March 7, 2020 9:19:34 AM Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will pass them along to other staff, including our traffic committee, for consideration. I will also file them with the application. Have a good weekend. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2020, at 10:09 PM, North Nowhere <zalockner@gmail.com> wrote: 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. Hello, I was at the Planning Committee meeting on February 5th, one of the few residents to speak in support of the proposed development as it is currently planned. Many of the other residents at the meeting had concerns about traffic speeds on Natchez and Princeton Avenues, and congestion at the nearby intersections. Since then, I have had some time to think, and have a possible proposal which I believe may address some of those concerns. An All-Way Stop should be implemented at the intersection of Natchez Avenue and Cedar Lake Rd, to the east of the site. This should calm traffic on Cedar Lake Rd, and make it a less desirable route, especially during rush hour. At the Intersection of Cedar Lake Rd and and Quentin Avenue, the stop signs should be removed from East- and West-bound Cedar Lake Rd, and at the intersection of Quentin, Old Cedar Lake, and E Frontage Rd, the stop signs should be removed from North-bound Quentin and South-Bound E Frontage Rd. This would keep traffic from backing up on Quentin Avenue and Cedar Lake Rd due to residents exiting the neighborhood. It would also make Princeton Avenue a less desirable corridor for Benilde-St. Margaret students (I remember that was a complaing about that) since there wouldn't be (as much) congestion on S. Frontage Rd coming from the north. It is likely that traffic exiting the West End would be more likely to back up, but most of that traffic would likely occur in the evening, when there is less traffic exiting the neighborhood that would interfere with it. The crosswalk at Quentin crossing Cedar Lake Rd, should be moved a ways to the East, and crosswalk lights should be added, that flash when pressed. Long-term, I think it is worth exploring the possibility of adding small roundabouts at both ends of Quentin Ave, as well as extending the sidewalk along E Frontage Rd, up to the Golden Valley City line. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 44 Please let me know if you have any questions for me, or if you have any other feedback. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Zachary Lockner City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 45 From:Jess Anderson To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Letter of petition re: Cedar Place Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:30:11 AM 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 Ms. Kramer, We are writing to you today on the recommendation of our City Council representative, Tim Brausen, on behalf of the many concerned residents who reside in the neighborhoods of Cedarhurst and South Tyrol (across Highway 100 from West End). This letter is in regards to the potential rezoning of 4900 Cedar Lake Road as requested by the Cedar Place development project up for City Council approval on April 6, 2020. We write with the hope that you will appreciate learning of the concerns that only a community’s personal experience can give insight to. It is important to state that we are not a community averse to change, as we have adapted to many significant changes in our area over the years and are not opposed to development that is appropriate for our neighborhood. This letter is supported by the 147 signatures (and counting) that have been signed to the petition linked below. This petition outlines our concerns in detail, and they are also summarized here. A significant concern regarding the proposed development relates to the worsening of an already serious traffic dilemma. Our neighborhood has experienced increasing traffic congestion directly correlative with the continuing development in West End. We are concerned that development will continue unchecked and without further exploration of its impacts to our community. Our neighborhood is in a unique position cornered between highways 100 and 394, creating a bottleneck for increasing traffic on the frontage road, and resulting in our residential streets becoming detours for speeding cars looking to avoid the congestion. This is very dangerous as we have many bicyclists and pedestrians on our streets due to the nearby trail system and the many bus stops. At certain points of the day it is also becoming difficult to drive in and out of our neighborhood and onto the frontage road. These are already issues even before the West End developments are complete. **Please note: Golden Valley has recently conducted traffic studies in the area and has data proving increased traffic levels and speeds. Their city planners recently reached out to St. Louis Park’s Planning and Zoning Supervisor to express concerns about traffic in the neighborhood and the potential impact of the proposed development. Rezoning for a six-story/high density development in our immediate residential neighborhood would certainly exacerbate the current traffic issue and possibly require urgent intervention. An apartment complex of this size would also be completely out of character with our community, and we are concerned it will set a precedent for additional high density developments in the same vicinity to follow. We trust that there is a way to support development while considering the needs and safety of the existing community. This is why we write to you, not to resist development, but to raise a City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 46 flag to an issue that may remain unknown unless we speak up. Please consider our three requests listed at the end of our petition that will help address these matters. Thank you for the work you do for the community of St. Louis Park, and we hope that our concern and petition are reasonable to you. Sincerely, Jeff Imming (Cedarhurst) and Jessica Anderson (South Tyrol Hills) (In representation of our communities as supported by the petition below) Petition link: https://www.change.org/Advocate_for_our_neighborhood_along_Cedar_Lake_Road Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 47 From:rharrison@rhsdplanning.com To:Jake Spano; Jacquelyn Kramer; Julie Grove; Tim Brausen Cc:Rachel Harris; Anne Mavity; Margaret Rog; Nadia Mohamed; Larry Kraft Subject:A letter in support of The Quentin Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:07:34 PM 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 Mayor, Council & Staff: Some of you know me from the first new ‘Green Home’ in St. Louis Park, and some know me from my international land planning business, and some also know I’ve not been pleased about the density direction of the city – However, if you are going to have density it should be at least very good high density. It caught my attention that my neighbor was the developer of The Quentin – Patrick Crowe. He is not a client and I have no business relationship with him or the Collaborative Group. I know Patrick very well. I can say he goes over and above with the improvements he’s made in his home and pretty much everything else he does. The plans I saw reflect a better job than I’ve seen in many of the new mid-rise buildings in this city, and again, not a fan of high density, but if we are going to have it – at least this looks much better than others. The only entrance and exit was far from the intersection of Quentin & Cedar Lake Road with no other access points. For the past 15 years I pass by that intersection on the way home. Traffic at that intersection is not a problem now and I don’t see this adding so much it would be a problem. I only wish that the other mid-rise units along the 394 service drive between West End and AC Hotel had the same visibility that this proposal has – when I do take that route I feel very unsafe, which is why I most often take the other route and encounter this intersection instead. I appreciate that the plan did not come off Quentin nor the Old Cedar Lake Route. Anyway – for whatever it’s worth – and even though I’m not a fan of the density direction the City has chosen, if we are going to have dense developments at least this is one is more in the right direction. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 48 Rick Harrison St Louis Park address: 2600 Natchez Ave S St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Cell 612-325-1950 Richard Harrison, President Rick Harrison Site Design Studio & Neighborhood Innovations, LLC’ 8832 7th Ave N. Minneapolis, MN 55427 P: 763-595-0055 M:612-325-1950 www.rhsdplanning.com www.neighborhoodinnovations.com City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 49 From:Dankwerth, Peter To:Margaret Rog; Rachel Harris; Anne Mavity; Nadia Mohamed; Larry Kraft; Tim Brausen Cc:Jake Spano; Jacquelyn Kramer; Julie Grove; Michelle Abramson Dankwerth Subject:Letter in Support of The Quentin Development Project Date:Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:52:24 AM 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. To the St. Louis Park City Council Members – We are writing to express our strong support for The Quentin development project at Quentin Ave and Cedar Lake Road S. We see multiple benefits to the community at large and the immediate neighborhood, consistent with SLP long term objectives. Nicely develops existing blighted properties, requiring no change to zoning (already high- density multifamily) Community leadership by example…a LEED building incorporating green features including all native landscaping, a birch grove (and pocket park), and rooftop solar panels to offset common area electric usage – something that to our knowledge hasn’t been done on a new construction multifamily development in MN Provides 8 affordable units Upgrades the location bus stop including making it ADA accessible Expands the Cedar Lake Trail feeder to the north towards the West End Provides a neighborhood bike hub with a public bike repair station with electric bike charging Raises the tax base from $30,000/year to over $365,000/year, including a one-time payment to support SLP parks and trails of $136,275 Provides/sustains ~50 direct jobs over the next 18 months, while also supporting many indirect jobs – something especially critical right now given the COVID impact on the economy We recognize the potential for increased traffic which seems to be of primary concern to the immediate neighborhood residents. 79 units with 3 cars transiting per day represents 237 additional cars per day. 12,500 cars currently pass through the area on a daily basis. The development adds a 2% increase in daily traffic. This tradeoff is reasonable to us given the overall benefits. Additionally, we believe the developer has taken these concerns to heart and done an excellent job of addressing as much as possible. Entrance setback ~200’ from the intersection of Cedar & Quentin to allow ample space to stack from the stop sign during JCC events 112 parking spots (vs 97 required) to reduce on street parking congestion, along with apron parking outside of the garage Amenities to attract tenants interested in alternative transport like bike commuting, bus, etc. to reduce underlying traffic Developed a good neighbor commitment as part of lease execution to address cut-through traffic on Natchez Ave (existing problem) and other items like noise City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 50 Lastly, the developer has taken building impact into account via design considerations. Reducing units from 115 to 79 to decrease density Reducing floor to floor height through engineering and more expensive structure to reduce building height from 75' (maximum allowed in current zoning) to 66' Building into the hill to lower the north side and reduce the size/impact on residential houses to the north Aligning the building with Quentin (to the detriment of sunlight exposure for the patio) to keep the building from shading residential houses to the north Positioning the green roof to be visible from residential houses to the north so they are looking at green space and plantings vs. the side of the building Preserving all of the significant trees along the boulevard including the 2 gorgeous oaks to the north Overall, we feel the developer has done their level best to anticipate and address concerns, in a positive manner, raised by the community, while hitting on key tenets important to SLP in building a welcoming, inclusive and environmentally sustainable community. We strongly urge the council to approve the project. Sincerely, Pete & Michelle Dankwerth 4300 Cedarwood Road This e-mail, attachments included, is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressees. If you are not an intended recipient, any use, copy or diffusion, even partial of this message is prohibited. Please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Since the integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet, SODEXO cannot therefore be considered liable for its content. Ce message, pieces jointes incluses, est confidentiel. Il est etabli a l'attention exclusive de ses destinataires. Si vous n'etes pas un destinataire, toute utilisation, copie ou diffusion, meme partielle de ce message est interdite. Merci de le detruire et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. L'integrite de ce message ne pouvant etre garantie sur Internet, SODEXO ne peut etre tenu responsable de son contenu. City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 51 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 52 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 53 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 54 Online petition: Support thoughtful and appropriately-scaled development in our community Dear St. Louis Park City Council members, As neighbors of the proposed development on 4900 Cedar Lake Road (also referred to as Cedar Place or The Quentin), we appeal to you to take into account the character and well- being of our community when considering this proposal. For those who are not familiar with our neighborhood, we are comprised of both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley residents in a well-established community of primarily single family homes, as well as a mix of duplexes, town homes, and one small two-story apartment building. Even though we are in close proximity to recent development in the West End, we seek to retain our thriving residential neighborhood filled with families and individuals, many whom have invested twenty to thirty years in building a strong community together. We want to be clear that we are not opposed to thoughtful development in this corner of our neighborhood, but there are three main concerns that we ask you to consider with this development proposal: 1. Scale of development: One significant concern is the scale of the current proposal, as it is completely out of character with our neighborhood. There are no buildings in our neighborhood over two stories high, and this proposed development is currently planned to be six stories high. Not only is a structure of this size completely out of context for this residential area, it would also be twice the size of most apartment developments found in residential neighborhoods across St. Louis Park. The average apartment complex found in residential areas of St. Louis Park is between two and four stories high. In order for this development to move forward, the developer is asking that the site be rezoned as PUD (Planned Unit Development), There are 14 sites zoned for PUD in St. Louis Park and they are on larger roadways such as Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 7, or in commercial areas. These areas are more highly trafficked, with infrastructure already in place to support increase in density. Both the rezoning for PUD as well as development of this scale in a neighborhood such as ours is unprecedented. We ask that you would not change this precedent in our community. It is also important to note that a development of the proposed size is not the only profitable option for this site. Rental rates are competitive, with one-bedroom apartments of similar developments in the area renting for between $1,600-$1,900 per month. A one bedroom apartment rental in our area is equivalent to monthly mortgages of many surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Even using calculations on the low end of local rental rates, this proposed development could easily bring in $1.5 million in yearly rental income. It is clear that this corner of our community would remain profitable with a development of a smaller scale. As city representatives, we ask you to support a scale of development that is appropriate for our neighborhood rather than letting maximum profit drive this decision. 2. Increased congestion (traffic and parking): As our neighborhood is located directly across Highway 100 from West End, we have already City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 55 endured the effects of recent development in the form of increasing traffic on the frontage roads and on our residential streets. We are in a unique location between two highways, resulting in limited outlets for increasing congestion which leads to back-ups on the frontage roads during high traffic times. Our neighborhood streets are becoming the alternate routes for traffic trying to get through the area quickly, and many residents are concerned about safety for themselves and their families as they travel their streets. We have no sidewalks, and we also have many pedestrians on our streets due to local bus stops and the nearby trail system that the community accesses by foot and bicycle. The congestion on the frontage road is already a significant issue, and its effects on the community are increasing. The addition of a development as large as the one proposed will only exacerbate this situation, and the omission of a traffic study in the planning process of this proposal is a concerning oversight. Parking is another concern for neighborhood residents who live in direct proximity to this proposed development. There are currently 110 parking spaces according to the development plans. There are currently 79 units and 97 bedrooms planned for this development. With the assumption that some bedrooms will be shared by couples, and also considering guests of the apartment residents, it is clear that 110 parking spaces will be inadequate to meet the parking needs of this development. Cedar Lake road will become a parking overflow, as well as nearby neighborhood streets. A smaller-scaled development plan would resolve this parking issue, as well as decreasing the traffic impact to our neighborhood. 3. Setting a precedent for further development: We have seen firsthand that after one development is built, often others follow. Again, it is important to say that we are not opposed to thoughtful development that enhances our community. If this proposed development is approved at it’s current scale, it will set the precedent for future development on other areas of Cedar Lake Road. This could mimic West End development trends, which would be overbearing and ultimately detrimental to the thriving of our current community. City Council members, we ask that you help bring balance to this development plan so that it will be appropriate in scale for our residential area, for the roads and infrastructure, and for the safety and well-being of our existing community. We petition that the City Council to require that these three stipulations will be met prior to approval and permitting of this or any development project: 1. Perform a comprehensive traffic study that includes current and projected traffic volumes, traffic patterns, parking patterns, and pedestrian and bicycle transit disruption on our streets within a reasonable radius of the proposed project. 2. Reject the PUD request and determine that development proposals for this site (as well as future development requests for the surrounding area) maintain current zoning, including a scale appropriate for a residential community (2 to 4 stories with a maximum of 46 feet). 3. Invest in the infrastructure of our neighborhood to help offset the impacts of past and future City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 56 development. This may involve building sidewalks, creating cul-de-sacs, or adding other traffic calming techniques to our streets to ensure that our safety is protected. Ultimately we are concerned that development will be prioritized over the well-being of a healthy and thriving community. Communities like ours are what make up a thriving city. If the well- being of our communities is not protected, the city will ultimately suffer. We ask that you choose to support the longevity of our community by approving development that will be of appropriate character and scale for our neighborhood. Sincerely, The neighbors of 4900 Cedar Lake Road City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 57 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 58 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)02/04/2020WATERSHED RE-SUBMITTAL02CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C300 - SITE.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 2/4/2020 10:25 AMKnow what'sRPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONCURB & GUTTERSWALEWETLANDSIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGSTANDARD DUTY ASPHALTHEAVY DUTY ASPHALTCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVINGBUILDINGLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTGENERAL GEOMETRIC AND PAVING NOTES:SIGNAGE AND MARKING NOTES:SITE DATA( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINLEGENDFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC300SITE PLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDWDOG RUNAGGREGATE PATHWAYVEHICLE MANEUVERING EXHIBIT CUTOUT:PATIO PAVERSCity council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 59 4900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD4900 CEDAR LAKE ROADST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PUDSHEET NUMBERSHEET NAMEOVERVIEWISSUANCE: PUDPROJECT NAME: 4900 CEDARPROJECT NUMBER: 1924DATE:DRAWN BY: LP/JBCHECKED BY: LP/JBREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATENO.STAMPI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and that iam a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.PRINTED NAME: JONATHAN BLASEGDATE: 12.18.2019LICENSE NUMBER: 56704SIGNATURE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUD12.18.20191FINAL PUD12.18.20192PEBL DESIGN3243 Winpark DriveNew Hope, MN 55427t: 763.544.8002www.pebl.designL100LANDSCAPE SITE PLANScale:011" = 20' - 0"LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN0020'40'GENERAL NOTES1. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING, UTILITIES, EROSION CONTROL,HARDCOVER/PARKING LAYOUT, PROJECT EXTENTS/ BOUNDARIES ANDDISTURBED SOIL RESTORATION AREAS.2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITHEXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTIONOF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAYCOMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES ANDREGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS,WALKWAYS, TREES, LAWNS, AND OTHER SITE FEATURES DESIGNATED TOREMAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALLBE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATIONS OFUNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THENECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION ANDPLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.9. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHES DONOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.10. EXISTING CONTOURS, PAVEMENT, VEGETATION, UTILITIES AND OTHERFEATURES ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DISCREPANCIESPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANTMATERIAL SELECTIONS AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHTNEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY.UNDESIRABLE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS OR SITE CONDITIONS SHALLBE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO BEGINNING OF WORK.12. ALL PLANTING BEDS NOT CONTAINED BY STRUCTURES, CURB OR PAVINGMUST BE EDGED WITH COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL EDGING (5" H x 316").13. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED (SEE L000) (EXISTINGTREES ARE DRAWN AT NORMAL MATURE CROWN DIAMETER AND THISDOES NOT REFLECT EXISTING CROWN SIZES, SEE SURVEY).PLANTING NOTES1. PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITIONOF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES ATTHE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO 'V'CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' FEETABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGINGBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.2. EXISTING BLVD TREES TO BE FENCED OFF AND PROTECTED DURINGCONSTRUCTION3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTIED BY THE CONTRACTOR FORA PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER/ARCHITECT'S WRITTENACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAYOCCUR PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.4. NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA5. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL TURF ANDSEEDED AREAS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF PLANTING SOILCONSISTING OF 1/3 TOPSOIL, 1/3 SAND, AND 1/3 COMPOST IN ALL SHRUBAND PERENNIAL BEDS.6. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS AND/OR AS DIRECTED IN THE FIELD BY THE ARCHITECT. THEARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING LOCATIONS OF PLANTMATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING.7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS.8. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES FROM THE GROUND TO THE FIRSTBRANCH. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVYWATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE.WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TODECEMBER 1ST AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER MAY 1ST.9. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON ORLATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BEREMOVED PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL.10. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQ) IN ALLPLANTING BEDS FOLLOWED BY 3" OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH TOPPING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.11. ALL SEEDED AREAS AND PLANTINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT SCOPE MUSTBE IRRIGATED OR WATERED VIA TEMPORARY HOSE BIBS THROUGH THEESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.TURF/SOD NOTES1. SOD ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ANDGRADING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE2. WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEEDSHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURBETC.3. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVESTAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DRAINAGESWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER SOD THOROUGHLY IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION. THEN WATER SOD DAILY FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYSFOLLOWING INTALLATION.IRRIGATION NOTES1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATIONLAYOUT PLAN SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHENBIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT SODDED/SEED ANDPLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREASDIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.2. SHRUBS AND PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIPIRRIGATION. SOD TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY. RAIN GARDENS NOTTO BE IRRIGATED.3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AWATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THEPROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIALS GROWTHREQUIREMENTS.4. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS ANDCOMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGEAROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALLBE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACEDRAINAGE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS.5. COORDINATE IRRIGATION SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERALCONTRACTOR.6. RAIN SENSORS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN.7. IRRIGATION LIMITS TO EXTEND TO STREET BACK OF CURB. IRRIGATIONSHALL NOT OVER SPRAY PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR PAVED SURFACES.BUILDING, SEE ARCHCEDAR LAKE ROADQUENTIN AVENUEOLD CEDAR LAKE ROADPROPERTY LINET11T11T21T21T11T11T11T21T21T2130'T36T42T422T522T616T66S115S251S358P1106P1115P168G186G136G21000G2560SO-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM2-SM2-BERMBERMBERMBERMPATIODOG RUN, SURFACING TBD.4' HIGH BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM PICKETPERIMETER FENCE WITHGATE(3) BIKE RACKSPARKINGBENCH(3) BIKE RACKSPROPOSED BIKE PATHEXISTING BIKE PATHEXISTING TREE,TYPICALT711NOTE: OFFSET OF SHRUB COUNTWe would like the Natural Resources Coordinator to consider our variety ofperennial plants to offset the project’s shortfall of shrubs. Our plan is currently 380shrubs short of the requirement. Per our perennial list we are proposing to install1,560 Little Bluestem Grasses and 122 Miscanthus Flame Grass; these 1682grasses could be considered as an offset for the following reason:xYear round appeal: these grasses will not be cut down in the winter and thereforewill provide wind break and habitat, reaching average heights of 2-4 feet.xBiomass: these grasses have root structures that reach upwards of 7 feet indepth, therefore significantly improving the soil quality and creating “habitat” formircro-organisms relevant to long-term soil health and fertile ground.xStormwater Benefits: due to the the physical traits of these grasses they promoteretention and infiltration of the stormwater, minimizing the output into the city’ssystem.xLong life: these grasses require zero maintenance once established and areself-sustaining via re-seeding (bluestem) or rhizomatic spreading (flame grass).Additional considerations for offset would be the 7,000 square feet of area beingseeded with a pollinator species mix, this includes a variety of natives: 7 differentgrasses, 1 sedge, and 37 forbs. Other perennial plantings include 289 astilbe(~18” height) and 8,000 square feet of no mow fescue.City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 60 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 61 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 62 City council meeting of April 6, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Cedar Place redevelopment Page 63