HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/10/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
OCT. 18, 2021
The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd. in accordance with the most recent COVID-19 guidelines. Members of the public can attend
the council meeting in person or watch the meeting by webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and
on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the
agenda and reports. Some members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Oct. 18
meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city
council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
5:45 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – community room
Discussion item
1. Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
EDA meeting canceled.; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. – community room
Members of the public who want to provide comment to the city council about items on the
regular city council meeting agenda may attend the meeting in person or email comments to
info@stlouispark.org by 3:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. Emailed comments will be provided
to the city council at the meeting and be included in the official meeting record.
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – community room
1.Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of donations
3.Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting of Sept. 20, 2021
3b. City council meeting of Oct. 4, 2021
3c. City council workshop of Oct. 4, 2021
4.Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
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.)
4a. Adopt Resolution establishing the employer contribution for benefits in 2022.
4b. Authorize the mayor and city manager to execute the local trail connection agreement
with Three Rivers Park District.
4c. Adopt Resolution approving fund closure, creation, and budget amendment.
4d. Adopt Resolution accepting donations for the fire department open house and
community health resource fair.
4e. Approve submission of a permit with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove
snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for
the 2021-2023 winter seasons.
Meeting of Oct. 18, 2021
City council agenda
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on Flag Avenue.
4g. Approve a subordinate funding agreement (Agreement) between the city and
Metropolitan Council for monitoring wells.
4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0019.
4i. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Aug. 18, 2021
4j. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Sept. 1, 2021
4k. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Sept. 22, 2021
5.Boards and commissions
5a. Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Recommended action: Motion to appoint youth representatives to the boards and
commissions as listed in exhibit A.
5b. Appointment to Planning Commission
Recommended action: Motion to appoint Michael Salzer to the Planning Commission for
the term ending May 31, 2023.
6.Public hearings
6a. Assessment of delinquent charges
Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close
the public hearing. No Further action. Approval of Resolution will take place at the Nov.
15, 2021 city council meeting.
6b. Public hearing for 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd. vacation ordinances
Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony on the
vacation ordinances, and then close the public hearing. The city council will be asked to
take action on these matters later in the meeting under agenda item 8b.
7.Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Recommended action: Update city code to reflect that utility fees and liquor license
fees are adopted by ordinance, rather than set by resolution.
8b. Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Recommended action:
1.Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text
(five affirmative votes).
2.Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Bereks
Addition (four affirmative votes).
3.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-268-11 and set
the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (four affirmative votes).
4.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance vacating drainage and utility easement
and set the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (five affirmative votes).
5.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending right-of-way vacation
ordinance and set the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (five affirmative votes).
Meeting of Oct. 18, 2021
City council agenda
8c. Traffic Study 750 – Authorize truck parking restrictions on Oxford Street
Recommended action: Motion to adopt two Resolutions authorizing:
•Truck parking restrictions on both sides of Oxford Street from Powell Road to
Louisiana Avenue, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday - Friday
•Prohibit parking along the south side of Oxford Street between the access
driveways to the Municipal Service Center at 7305 Oxford Street
9. Communications – None
**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 public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
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.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2525.
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Written report: 1
Executive summary
Title: Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to inform council of our current sidewalk
snow removal operations, those of neighboring municipalities, and the required additional
resources to maintain all public sidewalks within city limits. Staff would like direction on the
next steps for this topic.
Policy consideration: Is the city council comfortable with our current sidewalk snow removal
program? Does the city council want to explore expanding the program to include all public
sidewalks within the city?
Summary: At the Sept. 13, 2021 study session, council asked staff to identify options and
associated resource requirements necessary to maintain the entire public sidewalk system at
our current service level.
It is staff’s understanding from the council discussion that we are being asked to:
• Explore options for clearing all sidewalks within the city
• Present advantages/disadvantages of each option
Financial or budget considerations: Adding sections of snow removal would result in higher
costs which are not currently included in the 2021 budget or proposed 2022 levy and 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: Discussion
Sept. 13, 2021 study session
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager / operations and recreation director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
Discussion
Background: At a September 13, 2021 study session, council requested that staff provide
additional information reflecting our sidewalk snow removal practices. Specifically, council
asked staff to identify options and associated resource requirements necessary to maintain the
entire public sidewalk system at our current service level.
Past discussions: Staff has brought the sidewalk snow removal discussion to council on
numerous occasions over the years. The direction from previous conversations was to continue
to remove snow from the community designated walks only. As our public sidewalk system
continues to grow, staff has continually made minor adjustments to find an appropriate balance
between costs, completion times, consistency, and quality. This report will focus on our current
multi-faceted approach to clearing operations as well as explore the options/costs to expand.
Present Considerations
Current public sidewalk system: The city has 121 miles of public sidewalks. Of these sidewalks,
the city or a special service district performs routine maintenance (snow removal and
sweeping) on 47.5% (57.5 miles) of these sidewalks. City crews remove snow from the areas
designated as community sidewalks. For the remaining sidewalks, this maintenance is
completed by the property owner (63.5 miles).
Operational snow removal practice: Sidewalk snow removal activities typically begin if fresh
snow accumulations meet or exceed one inch. Start times are delayed two hours after the street
plowing commences to prevent plowing snow onto a completed sidewalk. High-volume sidewalk
machines are designed to focus on the quantity of snow removed not necessarily quality, so up
to a half-inch of snow may be left behind, depending on the snow conditions on the sidewalk.
Similarly, our machines are not designed to remove hard packed snow. We do not use chemicals
on our sidewalk system due to costs, environmental concerns, and inability for the water to
drain off. Snowbanks and frozen ground inhibit any runoff from absorbing which often results in
slippery conditions once the runoff re-freezes. With current staffing and equipment, we
sometimes struggle to meet ordinance requirements on snowfalls greater than 4-6 inches.
Enforcement program: Current enforcement is by complaint only. Staff used to inspect 25% of
the city after each storm for compliance but council directed us to reallocate staff time to
higher impact activities since 90-95% of residents are clearing their adjacent walks. The current
enforcement effort is broken up into two parts:
• First offence of a snow season: the property owner will receive an education letter
explaining their snow removal obligations and a date when staff will return to inspect for
compliance. Staff follows up to verify the snow has been removed. If the snow is still
present, the snow is removed and property invoiced for snow removal costs.
• Second offence of the snow season: the property will receive a $25 administrative citation
and education letter explaining their snow removal obligations and a date when staff will
return to inspect for compliance. Staff follows up to verify the snow has been removed. If the
snow is still present, the snow is removed and property invoiced for snow removal costs.
• The administrative citation doubles with each subsequent violation within the snow season.
Special study session meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
Senior Community Services’ H.O.M.E program: There are services available to seniors who are
unable to clear their walks. Senior Community Services’ H.O.M.E program offers affordable
services to Minnesotan’s age 60+ regardless of income. More information can be found on their
website at: https://seniorcommunity.org/services/home-program/.
Resource requirements/costs: The city has five routes and clears snow within 12 hours after a
heavy snowfall. Each route is roughly 11 miles long and requires one staff member and one piece
of equipment to complete. The cost for snow removal on the current routes is approximately
$40K - 80K/year depending on the year and the frequency/amount of responses requiring work
on overtime. Costs for snow removal are only recorded as the time spent operating the snow
removal equipment and do not include any administrative or overhead costs.
Surrounding communities: A recent survey of communities in the surrounding area yields a
wide range of system size, program size and completion times. Table 1 below summarizes the
data collected. In summary, most communities of a comparable size who clear all of their
sidewalks routinely allocate 2 - 5 days on the activity after each qualifying snowfall.
Table 1. Snow practices of surrounding communities
City Total Miles % Plowed by City Completion Time
St. Louis Park 110 50% 12 hours
Bloomington 260 100% 4 days
Crystal 33 90% 3-5 days
Edina 90 75% 48 hours
Golden Valley 52 100% 12-15 hours
Hopkins 22 10% 12 hours
New Hope 26 0% N/A
Richfield 48 100% 24 hours
Possible scenarios/costs for expansion: There are three scenarios that could be implemented
to clear the remaining 63 miles of sidewalks in the system: hire full time staff, hire part-
time/seasonal staff, or hire a contractor.
Using Full-Time Staff: Using an average 12-mile route, maintenance of the remaining 63 miles
of sidewalk would require an additional five sidewalk routes.
• Each new maintenance employee would require an approximate budget increase of
$85,000 (including benefits and overtime), or $425,000.
• Each of the five new machines would cost approximately $170,000. Using a 10-year life,
annual operating costs of five new machines would be approximately $85,000.
In summary, it would cost roughly $510,000 to add the remainder of the city-wide sidewalk
system, using full time staff, to our current maintenance program. Subsequent years would
require the ongoing $425,000 staff time expense.
Using Part-Time Staff: Implementing this option would require amendments to the union
contract. Additionally, The Local 49er Union Contract has language that limits us in use of
equipment by seasonal/part-time staff and restrictions on time worked within a calendar year.
In this current hiring environment, we have challenges filling all our current part-time positions.
Special study session meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
It is also important to note that if the additional part-time staff work over 30 hours on a regular
basis, cost for healthcare would need to be added to the wage rate.
Using Contract Resources: In 2018, staff received an estimate of $1.2M from our current special
service district contractor to clear the remaining sidewalk system. Staff had previously reached out
to three snow removal contractors already performing work for the city: One responded with the
above estimate and two others declined submitting an estimate stating they were not interested
in the work. The large upfront investment likely drove the contractor’s costs and the immediate
availability of the contractor to perform the work with the unpredictability of the snow events.
Likely capital implications: Regardless of how the remaining 63 miles of sidewalks are cleared,
the following situations will need to be resolved before staff can truly clear our entire public
sidewalk system.
Narrow sidewalks: A small portion of the additional miles of sidewalk considered for cleaning
are extremely narrow (less than 4 feet). These narrow sidewalks cannot be cleared with our
current equipment. Two possible scenarios exist for clearing these sections:
• Utilize special clearing methods (such as walk-behind equipment) on these sections at
significantly higher costs.
• Reconstruct these sections to a standard where current equipment will work. It is
estimated that these areas add up to approximately 2% of the remaining system. As
such, it would cost more than $1.5 million to reconstruct these narrow sections to meet
minimum standards.
Sidewalk gaps: There are many areas of the city where the sidewalk is not continuous for an
entire block. Some of these areas have sidewalk in the middle of the block, with no curb drop at
the corners, other areas have a curb drop, but the sidewalk ends abruptly mid-block. For safety
reasons, we cannot get our machines onto sidewalks that don’t have curb drops at the
beginning and end of the block/section.
Proposed sidewalks: There are an additional 4.3 miles of sidewalks proposed for construction as
a part of the Connect the Park (CTP) initiative. In addition, about 1.5 miles of sidewalk gaps are
constructed annually with our pavement management project. As these sections are built,
additional maintenance resources will be required to clear them. These additional costs are not
included in the numbers presented in this report.
Additional considerations: At the present time, sidewalks maintained by residents (hand
shoveled or snow blower) are often superior to our efforts and free of snow and ice throughout
the snow season. As mentioned earlier, municipal snow removal equipment is simply not
designed to clean sidewalks down to a bare surface. This snow left behind by using municipal
machines will eventually become hard packed. Once warmer temps arrive in the spring, no
reasonable amount of physical or chemical effort will be able to prevent the melting of snow
directly adjacent to the walks and the subsequent re-icing of the walks on a continual basis
making a bare sidewalk surface policy generally impossible to achieve.
Next steps: The purpose of this report is to present options and estimated costs to expand our
sidewalk snow removal operations. Due to the significant costs, additional direction and
funding would be needed from council to implement any of these options in future years.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of donations
Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda:
From Donation For
Cub Foods Knollwood $ 25 gift card
Food and supplies for the 2021 fire
department open house and
community health resource fair
Cub Foods West End $ 125 gift card
Northland Aluminum Products $ 500
Liberty Packaging $ 1,500
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Sept. 20, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), CFO (Ms. Schmitt),
Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), Communications and Marketing Manager (Ms.
Smith), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Economic Development Manager (Mr. Hunt)
Guests: Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers
2. Presentations
2a. Proclamation honoring Friends of the Arts Executive Director Jamie Marshall
Mayor Spano read the proclamation honoring Jamie Marshall, Executive Director, St.
Louis Park Friends of the Arts. He noted Mr. Marshall is leaving the city to take on a new
role. Mayor Spano thanked Mr. Marshall for his service to the city and his hard work. He
stated Mr. Marshall is loved, appreciated, and will be missed.
Councilmember Rog congratulated Mr. Marshall adding she was sorry to see him go. She
thanked Mr. Marshall for all the initiatives he led and his engagement with the
community on a deep level. She looks forward to seeing how his talents will benefit an
even broader community.
Councilmember Kraft stated he has been impressed with Mr. Marshall’s ability to make
art an expression of a community’s values. He appreciates how his work is tied into the
city’s strategic goals as well and he is excited for his new role.
Councilmember Harris added Mr. Marshall’s broad lens for inclusivity is appreciated as
well as his demeanor and thoughtfulness. She noted the city if more vibrant for his time
here and she is excited for his trajectory.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
Mr. Marshall thanked the council for their comments. He stated the mission of Friends
of the Arts is to build community through art. He stated it is hard to leave with all the
friends and partners he has made in St. Louis Park, and he is proud about the expansion
of community he has been a part of in the community. He stated he is honored and
moving forward Friends of the Arts will continue to play a big part in St. Louis Park. Mr.
Marshall hoped that arts will continue to empower people and stated he will miss the
community as he moves to the MN Arts Board in his new role.
3. Approval of minutes
3a. Study session minutes of July 12, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve the July 12, 2021, study session meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. Study session minutes of July 26, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the July 26, 2021, study session meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3c. City council meeting minutes of Aug. 2, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve
the Aug 2, 2021, city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3d. City council meeting minutes of Aug. 16, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the
Aug. 16, 2021, city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3e. Special study session minutes of Aug. 16, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Aug. 16, 2021, special study session meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3f. Special city council meeting minutes of Aug. 23, 2021
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to
approve the Aug. 23, 2021, special city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3g. Study session minutes of Aug. 23, 2021
Councilmember Kraft noted on page 5 it should read “…assumes the projects are
bonded” and later “…to pay debt or reduce amount of debt taken out.”
Councilmember Kraft noted on page 6, it should read “…plus population and business
growth” and later “…it could go up more if adding services or structures.”
Councilmember Kraft noted later on page 6, 3rd paragraph, it should read “…2022…” and
later “…the combination of commercial climate investment and development staff
salaries.”
Councilmember Brausen noted on page 9 the correct spelling of “Rosh Hashanah”.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve
the Aug. 23, 2021, study session meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of July 24 through Aug. 27,
2021.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 21-094 appointing election workers for the Nov. 2, 2021,
municipal and school district general election.
4c. Authorize execution of a contract amendment to a professional services contract
with Bolton and Menk, Inc. in the amount of $598,297 for the 36th Street and
Wooddale Avenue Improvements – City project 4022-6000.
4d. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2626-21, Ordinance No.
2627-21, Ordinance No. 2628-21, Ordinance No. 2629-21, Ordinance No. 2630-
21 amending various sections of chapters 6 and 8 of the city code, establishing
fees, and approve summary ordinances for publication.
4e. Adopt resolution approving special legislation relating to the transfer of pooled
tax increment into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. (Moved to regular
agenda item 8f).
4f. Approve Amendment No. 4 to City Agreement No. 42-19, between the city and
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for communication antennas and
related equipment on the city’s water tower at 2541 Nevada Ave S.
4g. Adopt resolution authorizing removal of stop signs on 25th Street and Boone
Avenue and rescinding Resolution 6079. (Moved to regular agenda item 8g).
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 21-095 authorizing removal of parking restrictions on
Walker Street and rescinding Resolution 10-136.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 21-096 authorizing parking restrictions on 41st Street.
4j. Adopt resolution authorizing truck parking restrictions on N County Rd 25 Frontage
Road. (Moved to regular agenda item 8h).
4k. Adopt resolution authorizing truck parking restrictions on the S County Rd 25
Frontage Road from Monterey Avenue to France Avenue. (Moved to regular
agenda item 8i).
4l. Adopt Resolution No. 21-097 removing permit parking restrictions at 2817
Brunswick Avenue.
4m. Adopt Resolution No. 21-098 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $175,231.95 for the sanitary sewer mainline rehabilitation project with
Hydro-Klean, LLC - city contract No. 14-21.
4n. Authorize the mayor and city manager to adopt Resolution No. 21-111 and
execute the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Edina for speed limits on
shared local streets.
4o. Adopt Resolution No. 21-099 accepting the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery
Fund established under the American Rescue Plan Act.
4p. Adopt Resolution No. 21-100 approving Community Charities of Minnesota to
conduct off-site gambling on September 25, 2021, at the St. Louis Park ROC, 3700
Monterey Drive.
4q. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Aug. 4, 2021
4r. Approve for filing fire civil service commission minutes of May 18, 2021.
Councilmember Brausen noted that consent agenda items 4g through 4l deal with traffic
issues and if these are not stated publicly, people are not aware of these changes in their
neighborhoods.
Mayor Spano, Councilmembers Rog and Brausen requested that consent calendar item
4e, 4g, 4j, and 4k be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8f, 8g 8h, 8i.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move
consent calendar item 4e, 4g, 4j, 4k to the regular agenda as item 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i; and to
waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings
6a. New Punch Bowl Minneapolis, LLC dba Punch Bowl Social – on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor license.
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report, noting this related to a corporate restructuring
and that the day-to-day operations of the business would not change.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Brausen noted Punch Bowl Social is open and presumed it is operating
under the existing license. Ms. Kennedy confirmed.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve
application from New Punch Bowl Minneapolis, LLC dba Punch Bowl Social for an on-sale
intoxicating and on-sale Sunday liquor license located at 1691 Park Place Blvd.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Establishment of the Beltline Residences Tax Increment Financing District
Resolution No. 21-101
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing.
Nick Murnane, 4047 Sunnyside Rd., thanked the council and city staff for the earlier
discussion and the consideration of the TIF district, noting if there are any questions, he
can answer them.
Mayor Spano closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Rog explained while she has no issues with the developer or staff, she
will oppose the establishment of the TIF district and feels a contradiction in approval of
TIF, especially given her concerns of its continued use in this manner.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-101 approving the establishment of the Beltline Residences Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district).
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Rog opposed).
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. 2022 preliminary HRA levy certification Resolution No. 21-102
Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. She noted the HRA levy cannot exceed .0185%
of estimated market value of the city, which calculates to $1,517,799 for 2022 based on
Hennepin County data. Ms. Schmitt noted the proposed all-in city tax rate for 2022 with
general, HRA and EDA levies would be 46.11%.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-102 authorizing the 2022 preliminary HRA levy.
Councilmember Brausen asked what 46.11% means and what is it a percentage of.
Ms. Schmitt stated it relates to what is applied to an individual’s tax capacity.
Councilmember Harris asked if the percentages are items that influence the projected
levy. Ms. Schmitt stated the $837,000 is the Dakota Bridge project related to debt
service and this year there will be debt service with the Louisiana bridge project as well.
Councilmember Harris asked about the capital replacement increase as well. Ms.
Schmitt stated the $262,000 capital replacement fund includes IT equipment, vehicles,
and snowplows. She stated this is an increase in costs with all equipment.
Councilmember Harris asked the impact of a 5.7% levy increase. Ms. Schmitt stated she
did not have that information.
Councilmember Mohamed briefly left the meeting.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
8b. 2022 preliminary EDA levy certification Resolution No. 21-103
Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. She noted the EDA levy cannot exceed .01813%
of estimated market value and the maximum levy would account for $1,487,433. She
added EDA has requested council pass a preliminary EDA levy for $500,000 which is
.00610% of market value.
Councilmember Kraft stated he will not support the EDA levy and would like to see this
be a separate line item in the general levy. He stated while he will support the overall
size of the levy increase and when added up, they are a 7% increase over last year. He
stated the baseline should be inflation rate plus increase in business and population
growth, and this should be at 3-4%. He added the debt increase adds 2% more and the
last 1% is climate investment. He stated these will provide positive environmental,
health and investment return for the community, which will save residents and
businesses money. He asked for staff to communicate the full amount of levy increases,
including HRA and EDA, better to the community.
Councilmember Kraft stated last year there was a minor increase or a decrease for
residents in their property taxes. He stated the tax capacity is tied to market value and
this year residential properties are going up dramatically, more than commercial or
industrial. He added because of this, it will seem like more of an increase this year
versus last year.
Councilmember Rog agreed and added the end user impact will be affected as the
county levied a 0% increase last year and it is 2% this year, so that will be a factor as
well.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
Councilmember Harris asked if the park improvement fund has a dedicated funding
stream and how it is generated. Ms. Schmitt stated this fund houses all capital expenses
for parks and park dedication fees go into this fund as well, but they are not a stable
funding source. The employee benefits fund houses retiree’s health insurance and
disability claims from years ago – and is all employee related.
Councilmember Harris asked if a climate improvement fund to this section, would it
have a dedicated funding source. Ms. Schmitt stated a levy will be created in Oct. for
climate, so that would be a dedicated fund for climate. Ms. Schmitt added if budget cuts
are ever needed, having monies in a dedicated fund can protect it.
Councilmember Harris stated by creating an EDA levy for climate initiatives, there would
likely be a more secure funding stream over the long term. Ms. Schmitt agreed.
Councilmember Dumalag stated this is her reasoning for wanting the EDA funding to be
separate, so it is always safe. She added 2020-21 was a volatile market for real estate,
noting this is not predictable.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is supportive of the preliminary levy as well as the
EDA and HRA levies. He stated these are targets that will be approved later, but agreed
it is the council’s position to educate residents on the taxes and that these help to
provide essential services.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she will support the preliminary levy and the EDA and
HRA levies as well.
Councilmember Rog asked if at one time the HRA levy funds were redirected for an
interfund loan for Louisiana Ave improvements. Ms. Barton stated that is correct,
adding this is an eligible use of the funds.
Mayor Spano asked about the 14% of the budget going to debt service and what that
total dollar amount is. Ms. Schmitt stated that is a little over $5 million.
Mayor Spano asked what the average debt service for a city like St. Louis Park is. Ms.
Schmitt stated it is all over the board. Mayor Spano asked who operates without any
debt. Ms. Schmitt stated Dakota County does and there are some other cities that do as
well.
Mayor Spano stated he would like to look further into this, adding he will support the
levies being presented.
Councilmember Kraft stated he understands the arguments for it being a separate fund,
but he does not agree.
Councilmember Rog stated the line-item listing should be clearer to the community and
staff should provide an explanation as to what the additional tax will support.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
Councilmember Mohamed returned to the meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-103 authorizing the 2022 preliminary EDA levy certification.
The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Kraft and Rog opposed).
8c. 2022 preliminary property tax levy certification Resolution No. 21-104
Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. She noted the preliminary general tax levy
proposed is 6.5%.
Councilmember Harris stated the proposed property tax amount is still higher than what
she has supported in the past, and she is only comfortable at a maximum amount of
5.7%, with a goal of moving it down to 4.5%. She stated while Ward 3 residents indicate
they appreciate the services, they are cost conscious given the current economy.
Councilmember Mohamed agreed.
Councilmember Rog stated she will approve this tonight while hoping to reach a lower
ultimate amount.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve Resolution No. 21-104 approving 2022 preliminary property tax levy and setting
budget public hearing date for Dec. 6, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Land use and zoning changes at Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100
Resolution No. 21-105
Ms. Kramer presented the staff report.
Councilmember Harris asked about the right-of-way changes. Ms. Kramer stated the
eastern portion of the land is right-of-way. What is being proposed is codifying that into
the land use change.
Councilmember Kraft stated he read the comments and saw three areas of concern
including, on commercial at that location, traffic and fairness to the previous owner. He
stated given how the ingress and egress, the coming in and out of the site is changed, he
feels commercial is no longer a good fit, especially when exiting off Highway 100. He
added the traffic would be less than what is already proposed and fairness to the
previous owner relates to did they receive a fair price.
Ms. Kramer stated they did receive a fair price when MnDOT purchased the land, and
the former owner will have first right of refusal when MnDOT goes to sell the land.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
Councilmember Kraft stated he is supportive of this.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she agrees the land is no longer useful for commercial
any longer and because of the city priority for more affordable housing, she will support
this.
Councilmember Rog thanked all the residents for their participation in the meetings and
their comments. She stated this parcel was useful for a gas station in the past, but that
has changed, especially with the city’s priorities for affordable residential housing and
environmental sustainability. She agreed it should be reviewed for zoning and land use,
adding she looks forward to more discussions on this parcel of land in the future. She
thanked staff for their work on this.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she also approves of the rezoning as presented.
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-105 approving amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map, as well as related figures, tables, and text; and, to approve first reading
of ordinance amending the zoning map from C-1 neighborhood commercial and R-3
two0family residence to R-4 multiple-family residence and set the second reading for
Oct. 4, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Mixed-use redevelopment proposal for 3510 Beltline Blvd. Resolution No. 21-
106
Ms. Monson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Harris asked about the floodplain and if the plans use the FEMA 100-
year flood accounts for changes due to climate change. Ms. Monson stated the
floodplain data used by FEMA was adopted in 2016, but the project is utilizing the more
up to date and accurate Atlas 14 floodplain data to establish the base flood elevation.
Councilmember Harris asked if there are situations when building in a flood plain is
disallowed. She added higher rain events and flash flooding might require the city to
reconsider standard practices, and while engineers are able to compensate for this, is
this in the community’s best interest. Councilmember Harris also asked about the PUD
and what advantage there is here in this situation. Ms. Monson stated there may be
communities that do not allow building in a flood plain, but St. Louis Park requires a
stricter standard at two feet above the base flood elevation versus the state
requirement at one foot above the base flood elevation. She added while the building is
located within a flood plain, they must maintain the same amount of flood storage on
the site, and this development will increase the storage amount. Ms. Monson stated to
get all the uses for the site, it would require a number of variances under the MX-1
zoning district, so therefore they are requesting a PUD instead. She added the PUD
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 10
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
provides the ability to require adherence to the city’s inclusionary housing policy and
the green building policy.
Councilmember Rog asked if this building and the building at 3440 Beltline Boulevard
will complement each other. Ms. Monson stated yes, they will, and that the architects
have closely considered the design of the adjacent building and worked to create a
building that complements the building to the north to create a certain feel along
Beltline Boulevard.
Councilmember Rog asked if all utilities are required to be buried now. Ms. Monson
stated yes, this has been a requirement for at least the last 10 years.
Councilmember Rog asked if building materials and colors are submitted to staff. Ms.
Monson stated yes, building materials and colors are submitted prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if this is the only approval for this project. Ms. Monson
stated there is a plat and a PUD approval for this project. Councilmember Dumalag
asked if there is a TIF request for this project. Ms. Monson stated no there is no TIF
being requested.
Councilmember Dumalag asked the developer to tell the council a bit about them.
Mr. Andy Bollig with Roers, the developer, explained the project and their interest in
getting into St. Louis Park. He noted 70% of their projects are affordable housing, and
they also do property management. He stated the capital raised took 2 weeks and the
average is about 2-3 months.
Councilmember Dumalag stated TIF is a way to help look at the books and keep eyes on
who is coming into the area. She added a way to decrease cost is on labor and materials,
adding she will support this project.
Councilmember Kraft noted St. Louis Park is a very desirable area. Mr. Bollig agreed. He
stated they do projects with TIF occasionally, and there are some savings on cost, but
they do reach out to minority and women businesses, and they did not want to waste
additional time on applying for TIF.
It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-106 approving the preliminary and final plat for Belt Line
Industrial Park 3rd Addition.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the first reading ordinance adding section 36-268-PUD 21 to the zoning code
and amending the zoning map from MX-1 vertical mixed-use to PUD 21 and set the
second reading for Oct. 4, 2021.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 11
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
The motion passed 7-0.
8f. Special legislation relating to the transfer of pooled tax increment into the
city’s affordable housing trust fund Resolution No. 21-107
Related to this special legislation, Mayor Spano thanked Vic Moore, the city lobbyist, as
well as Rep. Cheryl Youakim, Rep. Paul Marquart, Senator Ron Latz, Senator Anne Rest,
Senator Weber from Laverne, MN, and Senator Nelson from Rochester, MN, for helping
St. Louis Park with this initiative.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-107 approving special legislation relating to the transfer of pooled
tax increment into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.
The motion passed 7-0.
8g. Authorize removal of stop signs on 25th Street and Boone Avenue and
rescinding Resolution 6079 Resolution No. 21-108
Councilmember Brausen noted this is in Ward 4 and was reviewed by the city’s traffic
committee, made up of engineering, operations, police, and community development
staff, which meets monthly on updates or changes and then brings items to council for
approval. He stated the committee reviewed this intersection thoroughly and based on
the fact there are fewer than 2,000 people entering the intersection daily, the crash
history showing no accidents within the last 3 years, and the sight lines allow users to
apply the normal right-of-way rule. He wanted residents to be aware of these items.
Councilmember Kraft stated he will support this and asked staff to look at the same
threshold in reverse related to crashes when reviewing these types of issues.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-108 authorizing removal of stop signs on 25th Street and Boone
Avenue and rescinding Resolution 6079.
The motion passed 7-0.
8h. Authorize truck parking restrictions on N County Road 25 Frontage Road
Resolution No. 21-109
Councilmember Rog stated she is relieved to see these restrictions go into effect and
recognized that trucks play a key role in the economy and this needs to be addressed on
the local and national level. She added the council should bring these items forward to
state and federal government, adding there is currently a bipartisan bill to put $750
million of federal money into creating safe trucking across the country. She asked staff
to post signs as soon as possible.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 12
Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 20, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-109 authorizing truck parking restrictions on N County Road 25
Frontage Road.
The motion passed 7-0.
8i. Authorize truck parking restrictions on the S County Road 25 Frontage Road
from Monterey Avenue to France Avenue Resolution No. 21-110
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-110 authorizing truck parking restrictions on the S County Road 25
Frontage Rd from Monterey Ave to France Avenue.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications - none
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 4, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director of Operations
and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Police Chief Harcey, Director of
Building and Energy (Mr. Hoffman), Interim Human Resources Officer (Ms. Timpone),
Recreation Superintendent (Mr. West), Sustainability Manager (Ms. Ziring), Sustainability
Specialist, (Ms. Pottorff), Natural Resources Manager (Mr. Bahe), Office Assistant (Mr.
Peterson-Etem)
Guests: Officer Jon Fisher, Nancy Wolfe, Hannah Schoenman, David Unmacht
2. Presentations
2a. Jon Fisher years of service recognition
Officer Fisher has served with the city of St. Louis Park since 1998 and is now retiring.
Mayor Spano read a resolution into the record regarding Officer Fisher’s service.
Officer Fisher thanked the city council, police force, and community stating it has been
an honor to serve the city.
Chief Harcey recognized Officer Fisher for his work stating it has been an honor to serve
with him. He added the city will miss Officer Fisher and he wished him the best in his
retirement.
2b. 2021 Evergreen Awards
Natural Resources Manager Michael Bahe presented Hannah Schoenman and Nancy
Wolfe with the 2021 Evergreen Award. Both winners received certificates and spruce
trees from the city for their garden and landscaping work on their respective properties.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
Councilmember Harris congratulated Ms. Schoenman on her pollinator garden and
stated she is an asset to the community.
Councilmember Dumalag congratulated the winners and noted she has seen Ms.
Wolfe’s gardens. She thanked Ms. Wolfe for teaching others about gardening and
landscaping.
2c. First-place 2021 League of Minnesota Cities/Green Step Cities Sustainable City
Award
Dave Unmacht, Director of League of Minnesota Cities, presented the plaque award,
and a $1,000 gift to the city. He also presented a video related to the city’s sustainability
project involving the Westwood Nature Center. He applauded the staff and team who
worked on the Westwood Nature Center project and stated this is an annual award that
represents best practice. He noted the city was up against 10 other cities in receiving
this award, and added judges are the city’s peers.
Councilmember Brausen stated this was a community-wide undertaking as well as staff
and donors to the project. He thanked all for their participation.
Councilmember Harris stated Councilmember Brausen and former Councilmember
Hallfin attended a conference about 6 years ago and brought the idea for this project to
the council and staff. She thanked them for their ideas and vision and staff for their hard
work on the project.
Councilmember Kraft thanked the League and staff for their work, adding this is an
important award as it integrates both nature and the uniqueness of the building. He
added this is especially important as the city is part of a group working for more
aggressive building codes at the state legislature to get to net zero energy by 2036. He
stated this shows that this is possible and the direction we all should be going.
Mayor Spano added he was glad Ms. Walsh and Mr. Hoffman were featured in the
video, representing the passion both staff and residents have for the nature center. He
stated the center is in St. Louis Park, but it is a regional center and folks come from all
over the state to visit. He noted students come to learn and work there and he thanked
the League for their recognition to the city. He also thanked the donor that left
$300,000 in their will several years ago, for the Westwood Nature Center, which was the
seed that funded all the studies and led to this project. He thanked that donor and their
family for their support.
2d. Recognition of Donations
The following donations were noted by Mayor Spano, who thanked the donors on
behalf of the council and city:
-$2,200 donation from Barbara Fischbein for a memorial bench
-$2,200 donation from Lee and Eva Lockrem for a memorial bench
-$2,200 donation from Beverly Zerbib-Berda for a memorial bench
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
-$2,200 donation from Kim Pastor for a memorial bench
-$35 donation from Constance Freed for park enhancements or program needs
-$50 donation from Darcie Barden for park enhancements or program needs
- $250 donation from Taichi and Robin Chen for park enhancements or program
needs at Westwood Hills Nature Center
- $2,200 donation from David, Jeff and Steve Hunter for a memorial bench and a
memorial bench and concrete donation from Tim Kiernan
Councilmember Rog stated she is appreciative of these donations and notes that the city
can also accept donations into the affordable housing trust fund and wanted to make
sure the city created clear pathways for people to be able to do this.
3. Approval of minutes – none
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Aug. 28 through Sept. 24,
2021.
4b. Adopt Resolution No.21-112 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the
League of Minnesota Cities as part of the first-place 2021 League of Minnesota
Cities/GreenStep Cities Sustainable City Award in the amount of $1,000.
4c. Approve final plans and authorize advertisement for bids for the addition of solar
to The Rec Center’s rooftop. (This item was removed from the consent calendar
and considered as regular agenda as item 8a.)
4d. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2631-21 adding section 36-
268-PUD 21 to the zoning code and amending the zoning map from MX-1 vertical
mixed-use to PUD 21 and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication
(required 4 affirmative votes).
4e. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2632-21 amending the zoning
map from C-1 neighborhood commercial and R-3 two-family residence to R-4
multiple family residence and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication
(requires five votes).
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 21-113 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $37,458.11 for the 2021 Street Maintenance (Area 5) with Bituminous
Roadways, Inc. – city contract No. 37-21.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 21-114 to recognize Jon Fisher for his 23 years of service.
4h. Approve the premises amendment to the on-sale micro distiller cocktail room
liquor license for The Dampfwerk Distillery located at 6311 Cambridge St.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 21-115 approving labor agreement between the city and
the police lieutenant employee bargaining group, establishing terms and
conditions of employment for 2.5 years, from July 20, 2021 – Dec. 31, 2023.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 21-116 approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from
Barbara Fischbein for a memorial bench, $2,200 donation from Lee and Eva
Lockrem for a memorial bench, $2,200 donation from Beverly Zerbib-Berda for a
memorial bench, $2,200 donation from Kim Pastor for a memorial bench, $35
donation from Constance Freed for park enhancements or program needs, $50
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
donation from Darcie Barden for park enhancements or program needs, $250
donation from Taichi and Robin Chen for park enhancements or program needs
at Westwood Hills Nature Center, $2,200 donation from David, Jeff and Steve
Hunter for a memorial bench and a memorial bench and concrete donation from
Tim Kiernan.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 21-117 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line 1430 Lancaster Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 01-117-
22-41-0084.
4l. Adopt resolution approving a COVID-19 vaccination incentive policy for eligible
city employees. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and
considered as regular agenda as item 8b.)
Councilmember Brausen requested that consent calendar item 4c be removed and
placed on the Regular Agenda to 8a.
Councilmember Rog requested that consent calendar item 4l be removed and placed on
Regular Agenda to 8b.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember
Rog, to approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to
move consent calendar item 4b and 4l to the regular agenda as items 8a and 8b; and to
waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions – none
6. Public hearings
6a. On-sale intoxicating liquor license – Hope West End LLC dba Hope Breakfast
Bar
Mr. Peterson-Etem presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Brausen noted for the record the council did accept public comment on
this item and did not receive any response prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Brausen asked what the operating hours are of the restaurant. Mr.
Peterson-Etem stated the hours of operation allowed are set by state statute, but he
could get the exact hours this business intends to be open to council.
Councilmember Harris stated she has visited the St. Paul location, enjoyed it, and looks
forward to attending this new location in the West End.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to
approve application from Hope West End LLC dba Hope Breakfast Bar for an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license located at 5377 W. 16th St., with a license term through March
1, 2022.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items
8a. Final plans and authorize advertisement for bids for the addition of solar to
The Rec Center’s rooftop
Councilmember Brausen noted this is important for the city, as city operations comprise
1.5% of total community-wide greenhouse gas emissions. He added this gives the city an
opportunity to lead on emissions reduction efforts. He continued within the city’s
emissions profile buildings and lighting make up 56% of emissions and within this
category, at 61% of gas emissions is the rec center. He stated the proposal is to reduce
the emissions and this is a single installation of a 264-kw solar array on the roof above
the east area.
Councilmember Brausen noted this will be the single largest ever installed and double
the city’s rooftop solar capacity from 291 kw to 555 kw across 4 facilities. He added it
will provide 345.59 megawatt hours of electricity annually to offset 12% of the annual
energy load of the building and save $27,000 per year in electricity costs, plus an
additional savings with the Xcel Energy wind source program.
Councilmember Brausen explained the approximate installation cost will be $485,000,
giving the project a payback of 16.3 years. He added it makes sense to move to more
solar, and greener and cleaner energy, and this is an area the city can lead with best
practices.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about the original plan to pay for this in three
installments, which was budgeted in the capital improvement plan. She also asked if the
city pays for this upfront, as staff recommends, will the city be taking additional debt for
this project, use climate action funds, or use funds from the EDA levy to pay for this. Ms.
Keller stated staff proposal used funds from the fund balance, which was proposed at
the June 14th meeting. The council was supportive of this at that time. She added at the
Oct. 18th meeting, this transfer will be on the agenda.
Councilmember Harris asked if the city is already receiving 50% from wind source, why
is there a need for solar array.
Councilmember Kraft agreed and noted the city had subscribed to the Xcel wind source
program for all energy. He asked if we are already doing that, how does this affect
greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Keller stated there is not enough wind source capacity
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
for all, and there will be some changes in the Xcel program in the future. Also, by adding
renewable energy generation to the grid, the city is reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and by increasing the grid capacity, the city is reducing the peak events. She added
there is a payback to the city also as electric rates continue to increase.
Councilmember Kraft stated having solar on the rec center is a great example for the
city and can help residents to see what they can also do in their own lives.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports these investments and the punch they pack is
how we convince others to get on board.
Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for their work on this, noting the rec center is
one of the biggest energy users in the city, but the city must continue to challenge itself
on finding renewable energy and staff will be working on this. He added we do not do
wrong when we try to do the right thing.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve
final plans and authorize advertisement for bids for the addition of solar to the rec
center’s rooftop.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. COVID-19 vaccination incentive policy for eligible city employees. Resolution No.
21-118
Ms. Timpone presented the report. She stated there are many unknowns currently
related to the mandate, and staff is looking at the best way to prepare for this. The
leadership team is looking at incentives for employees, which would provide a prepaid
cash card of $300, a taxable item, where employees would provide their proof of
vaccination.
Councilmember Rog asked about legal issues related to this incentive. Mr. Mattick
stated you can ask employees if they are vaccinated, and if someone refuses to take the
vaccination, will it be treated as insubordination or will it be a voluntary request. He
stated it is an ongoing process and changes are happening daily, noting there can be
problems related to ADA or religious issues and there are limitations as to how far
secondary inquiries can go.
Councilmember Rog asked how the mandate will change this. Mr. Mattick stated this is
all being worked on, including from a collective bargaining standpoint.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports the safety of staff and wants all to get a vaccine
but understands this is challenging. She noted this would be $87,000 in funds for the
incentive package. She added these are federal funds for Covid response.
Councilmember Rog asked if this is an investment to prevent future challenges and how
will this investment address those challenges. Ms. Timpone stated the challenges are
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
the unknowns that have been discussed, so by doing this incentive, the city will have
information on how many staff are and are not vaccinated. Then the city can prepare for
the costs of testing, as well as knowing what the mandate will require of the city.
Councilmember Rog asked about city services to residents. Ms. Keller stated the vaccine
will reduce the problem of employees being out ill. This will help to further potential
adoption of the vaccines and streamline data collection.
Ms. Timpone added the CDC and MDH are not requiring quarantines for those fully
vaccinated, and if not vaccinated, there is a 14-day quarantine period, which is
extremely disruptive to staff. She added the state provided a $100 incentive, however
the city thought offering a larger incentive could convince more people to get
vaccinated.
Councilmember Kraft asked if this would provide data about who is and who is not
vaccinated. Ms. Timpone stated yes if they apply for the incentive program.
Councilmember Kraft asked if the city would keep track of dates. Ms. Timpone stated
yes.
Councilmember Kraft asked why the city should incentivize when this is already a
mandate. He has some concerns but will support it. He added this money could also be
used for education around vaccinations but will defer to staff.
Ms. Keller stated the total expenditure would be $87,000 if all employees were
vaccinated. She added while looking at these costs, they are also looking at testing
costs, which are unknowns at this time.
Mayor Spano added this is a one-time expenditure, and he does not see congress
coming back to add more funds to pay for testing.
Councilmember Brausen stated this is money well invested.
Councilmember Rog asked if tests are covered by health insurance and if not, is that
something the city would have to pay for. Ms. Keller noted that the state has not
provided any information or restrictions about testing and those details are still to be
determined.
Councilmember Harris stated staff has done an opportunity cost analysis here and she is
supportive of this to reduce illnesses and costs related.
Councilmember Mohamed stated in the schools, they are required to do COVID testing,
adding it is labor intensive and takes time. She noted insurance pays for test, but this
assumes all have insurance and some are not insured by the city. She hopes the
employee will not have to pay for the testing and she supports the incentive program,
while adding she understands the costs.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: City council meeting minutes of Oct. 4, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag added she is also in favor of this. She stated this addresses
staff only and not council. Ms. Keller stated yes this is for staff only.
Councilmember Kraft encouraged all to get vaccinated as it is everyone’s civic duty to do
so. He added he is interested in seeing the data on this.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if the incentive applies to part-time or seasonal staff.
Ms. Keller stated it would not apply to seasonal staff.
Councilmember Rog stated this is more about the data and getting ahead of the curve.
She does not feel the incentive is warranted and education is more effective. She stated
paying people for what they have already done is not appropriate and she will oppose
tonight.
Mayor Spano asked if this were opened to non-benefit staff, what would this look like.
Ms. Timpone stated staff would need to look at when they are employed, noting there
would be election workers to add as well as seasonal staff, moving employee number
from 295 up to 500-600.
Mayor Spano agreed it is shocking how vaccines have become politicized. He asked staff
to have a light touch as shaming or calling out people will not bring folks around –
adding he is not suggesting council is saying this.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve a Covid-19 vaccination incentive policy for eligible city employees and adopt
Resolution No. 21-118.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Rog opposed).
9. Communications
Ms. Keller encouraged all to attend a free screening of a documentary film Youth vs. Gov
at the Twin Cities Film Festival, Oct. 30, 2021, 11:00 a.m. at Showplace ICON Theatres,
which discusses issues related to the climate crisis.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Minutes: 3c
Unofficial minutes
City council workshop
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
October 4, 2021
The workshop convened at 8:05 p.m. in the Community Room at City Hall.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), Interim Human Resources Officer (Ms. Timpone)
Guests: GovHR Consultant (Ms. Lewis)
1. Discussion
Ms. Lewis introduced herself to the council and explained that she is facilitating an onboarding
discussion to assist the council and new city manager with a successful transition into the
position.
Ms. Keller provided the council with her observations after six weeks on the job, and council
had an opportunity to provide feedback to Ms. Keller on their observations. Ms. Keller reported
that the city works well, she senses deep respect among staff and finances are stable. She sees
opportunities in technology, relationship building and equity focus. Council reported that Ms.
Keller has had good relationship-building skills, shows great systems thinking, shows respect
towards council and staff, and overall has felt that the transition has been seamless.
Ms. Keller went over her 30 day/90 day/6-month plan for priorities and outputs. The plan
includes work on establishing a race equity strategy, utilizing key vacancies, further
implementing a systems approach to processes, and fostering strong relationships. Council was
supportive of the plan and reported that although it looks ambitious, it’s in alignment with
council expectations.
The group discussed Ms. Keller’s 6-month performance evaluation that is required by her
employment agreement (closed executive session tentatively scheduled for January 31, 2022).
Ms. Keller will use the plan discussed to create a recommended guide for the evaluation
discussion that will show if results are on course and/or meeting stretch goals in several
functional areas. More information will be provided about the recommended evaluation
process in the coming weeks.
The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution establishing the employer contribution for
benefits in 2022.
Policy consideration: Does council approve the recommended amount of employer benefits
contribution for 2022?
Summary: This report details the city’s employee benefits planned for 2022, and staff’s
recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2022. The recommendation follows
the funding philosophy adopted by the city in 2015 after several meetings and feedback from
an employee task force. The employer contribution funding philosophy is based on the
employer contribution for all plan options on the most utilized plan ($2500 deductible health
plan). It covers 100% of the premium for employee only coverage (plus additional funds for
voluntary elections for dental and deferred compensation) and 70% of the premium for other
employee plus dependent coverage options.
For 2022, we were fortunate to have a rate cap of 9% but our health insurance provider
provided a renewal with a 5% decrease in premiums and a rate cap of 9% in 2023. This provides
stability in rates and gives the city the ability to plan and budget for future years with more
accuracy. We are also pleased that our dental provider, and life insurance and long-term
disability insurance provider proposed a 0% increase for 2022.
Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2022
budget and will be built into the budget for subsequent years.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, interim human resource officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
Discussion
Background: The city has an employee benefits committee that consists of employees
represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to educate
staff on benefits and get feedback on what staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. The
benefits committee assists with gathering information and making recommendations on
potential benefit designs or options. They do not provide input on specific funding amounts for
employer contribution.
Medical insurance (5% premium decrease)
The city has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. We went out for a formal bid for
2019 which is required every five years in accordance with state statute (we will do another
formal bid no later than 2023 for 2024 plans). Although we expected and planned for a 9%
increase, HealthPartners provided a renewal for 2022 of a 5% decrease in rates and a rate cap
of 9% increase in 2023. This is extremely favorable and rare. Staff and our benefit consultant
are pleased with the stability of these rates and will continue to monitor plans and provide
recommendations where appropriate to mitigate future costs.
VEBA refresher
The city continues to offer a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding
mechanism in coordination with the deductible health plans. The VEBA is funded with employer
contributions. Employer VEBA contributions are placed in a trust in an individual’s name and
funds are available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will
stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside
tax-free, earn tax-free interest and qualified medical expenses are reimbursed tax-free. The
VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for
reimbursement of qualified medical expenses, including premiums.
Dental insurance (no change in premiums)
We have been insured with Delta Dental for many years and our consultant works closely with
them to secure the most favorable rates each year. We were fortunate to get a renewal with no
premium increase or changes to the plan design. This is a voluntary plan for our employees.
Long term disability (LTD) (no change in premiums)
We are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit
provides income continuation at 60% of pre-disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or
injured and unable to resume work after a six-month waiting period.
Life insurance (no change in premiums)
A basic life insurance benefit is provided to all benefit-earning employees at 1.5 times their
salary, paid by the city. Employees also have the option to purchase additional supplemental
insurance (up to $500,000), and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. There is no
change to the supplemental insurance rates or plan design.
Deferred compensation (continue with current program; no change recommended)
The city offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is
a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for
employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This benefit has also been
negotiated into union contracts.
2022 employer contribution recommendation
An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee
input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to
provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to those who elect
to insure dependents. All funding amounts are based on the city’s most utilized plan ($2500
deductible plan). In the funding philosophy, employees electing employee only coverage are
provided with a city contribution equal to 100% of the premium with leftover funds available so
employees could purchase voluntary benefits such as dental insurance and a $50/pay period
deferred compensation contribution. The monthly contribution for 2022 is $875 per month for
employees who choose employee only health insurance coverage. The city also contributes
$2500/year ($208.34/month) to employee only VEBA accounts, which is 100% of the
deductible.
For employees who elect to cover a spouse and/or children, the city will continue to contribute
70% of the premium and 70% of the family deductible ($3500/year or $291.67/month).
The chart below shows total employee and employer costs per month for each plan option
offered. The “employee cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “employer
contribution” and the “premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset premium
costs. Employer
VEBA
Contribution
Total
Employer
Contribution
2022
PLAN OPTIONS
Premium
Employer
Contribution
Employee
Cost
$2,500 Employee $ 719.50 $ 875.00 $208.34 $ 1,083.34 $ 155.50
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,511.00 $ 1,060.00 $291.67 $ 1,351.67 $ (451.00)
Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,584.00 $ 1,110.00 $291.67 $ 1,401.67 $ (474.00) Family $ 2,015.00 $ 1,410.00 $291.67 $ 1,701.67 $ (605.00)
$4,500 Employee $ 642.00 $ 875.00 $208.34 $ 1,083.34 $ 233.00
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,348.50 $ 1,060.00 $291.67 $ 1,351.67 $ (288.50)
Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,413.50 $ 1,110.00 $291.67 $ 1,401.67 $ (303.50)
Family $ 1,798.00 $ 1,410.00 $291.67 $ 1,701.67 $ (388.00)
$4,500 Employee $ 603.50 $ 875.00 $208.34 $ 1,083.34 $ 271.50
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,267.50 $ 1,060.00 $291.67 $ 1,351.67 $ (207.50)
SmartCare Emp+Spouse $ 1,328.50 $ 1,110.00 $291.67 $ 1,401.67 $ (218.50)
Family $ 1,690.00 $ 1,410.00 $291.67 $ 1,701.67 $ (280.00)
$30 Employee $ 872.00 $ 875.00 -- $ 875.00 $ 3.00
Co-Pay Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,830.50 $ 1,060.00 -- $ 1,060.00 $ (770.50)
Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,919.00 $ 1,110.00 -- $ 1,110.00 $ (809.00)
Family $ 2,440.50 $ 1,410.00 -- $ 1,410.00 $ (1,030.50)
Waive $155.00 -- $155.00 $ 155.00
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be
eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA
contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer
contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $155
(pro-rated for part-time employees).
Budget considerations
In initial budget projections, city staff had estimated a 9% increase in premiums for 2022. The
renewal provided a 5% decrease. This amount has been included in the 2022 budget
projections.
Next steps: Staff is pleased with the benefit programs we have been able to develop and offer.
Staff feel that the plans as outlined above will provide satisfactory and affordable options for
coverage based on individual needs. Approval is recommended.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
Resolution No. 21-_____
Resolution establishing
2022 employer benefits contribution
Whereas, the city council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means
for providing employee group benefits; and
Whereas, the city council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and
Whereas, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as
approved by the city manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
1.Effective January 1, 2022, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non-
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage be set at $875 per month, pro-rated for regular
part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
2.Effective January 1, 2022, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non-
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE + CHILD(REN) coverage be set at $1,060 per month, pro-rated
for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
3.Effective January 1, 2022, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non-
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE + SPOUSE coverage be set at $1,110 per month, pro-rated for
regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
4.Effective January 1, 2022, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non-
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose FAMILY coverage be set at $1,410 per month, pro-rated for regular part-
time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
5.Effective January 1, 2022, employees who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the
DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $208.34 per month
($2500/year).
6.Effective January 1, 2022, employees who choose EMPLOYEE+CHILD(REN),
EMPLOYEE+SPOUSE, or FAMILY coverage on the DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an
employer VEBA contribution of $291.67 per month ($3500/year).
7.Effective January 1, 2022, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non-
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who WAIVE COVERAGE will be set at $155 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time
employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
8.The city will continue to administer other benefit programs.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: 2022 employer benefits contribution
9. The appropriate city officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of
any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the
employee’s or officer’s share of any such premium to the insurer under an approved
contract.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Approve trail connection agreement with Three Rivers Park District on North Cedar Lake
Trail
Recommended action: Motion to authorize the mayor and city manager to execute the local
trail connection agreement with Three Rivers Park District.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the continued use of the city’s connections
to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail?
Summary: During the construction of the Dakota Edgewood trail bridge, a temporary trail
connection was created in the fall of 2020 to connect the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to the
east side of Dakota Park. This allowed for the detouring of the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
through Dakota Park and connected back to the regional trail at Nelson Park. The detour was
needed so trail users could safely bypass the construction of the bridge.
The trail connection allows additional access to the east side of Dakota Park and has been well
received by the community. Operations and Recreation staff requested that the trail remain a
permanent connection to the regional trail. Three Rivers Park District is agreeable to the
additional connection to their trail and asked that a formal agreement be signed to define
ownership and maintenance of the trail connection.
In addition, Three Rivers Park District did not have agreements for the existing trail connection
at Dakota Park or the trail connection at Nelson Park and asked that this agreement include
these two additional connections.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has been maintaining and removing snow from
these trail connections and this trail connection agreement does not have additional financial
impacts to the city.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Local trail connection map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Sr. engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Deb Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Approve trail connection agreement with Three Rivers Park District on North Cedar Lake Trail
Discussion
Background: During the early stages of construction of the Dakota Edgewood trail bridge, the
contractor constructed an asphalt trail along the east side of Dakota Park, connecting the North
Cedar Lake Regional Trail to the east side of Dakota Park near the home plate of the northerly
baseball field.
The trail was used as a detour route multiple times during the construction of the bridge. This
included several weeks over the winter to allow the contractor to pile drive and dig footings
adjacent to the trail.
The trail was anticipated to be removed at the end of the project due to the Three Rivers Park
District's concern during project development with how this access might impact the regional
trail. The Operations and Recreation department received positive feedback about this trail
connection and asked engineering staff if we could keep the trail as a permanent connection.
The connection had been in place for almost a year and has been proven to be a safe and well-
used access to the regional trail. Three Rivers Park District supports allowing this trail
connection to remain.
During the development of this agreement, Three Rivers Park District determined that we do
not have agreements for the existing city trail connections at Nelson Park or at the trail
connection that will be re-established under the new bridge. They are requesting one access
agreement to cover all three locations. The attached graphic shows the three locations:
• Existing trail access at Nelson Park that was not impacted by construction of the Dakota
Edgewood trail bridge (shown in yellow)
• Existing trail access at Dakota Park that was removed and will be replaced as part of the
bridge construction (shown in green)
• New trail access at the east side of Dakota Park that was built as the regional trail detour
during bridge construction (shown in red)
The city currently owns and maintains these trail connections on city-owned land. The local trail
access agreement formalizes these connections and does not change ownership or
maintenance responsibilities of the trail connections.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Approve trail connection agreement with Three Rivers Park District on North Cedar Lake Trail
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving trail connections agreement with the Three Rivers Park
District for the North Cedar Lake Trail
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably; and,
Whereas, the North Cedar Lake Trail is a popular destination for pedestrians and bicyclists
and is operated by Three Rivers Park District; and,
Whereas, providing convenient and safe connections to the North Cedar Lake Trail from
the St. Louis Park citywide system of bikeways, sidewalks and trails will make progress toward
cleaner air, less traffic and noise, and more livable neighborhoods by promoting the use of low-
carbon and no-carbon travel; and,
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park deems it proper and in the public
interest to enter into an agreement with Three Rivers Park District to establish the connections
to the North Cedar Lake Trail; and,
Now therefore be it resolved, the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and
directed for and on behalf of the city to execute and enter into an agreement with the Three
Rivers Park District for the North Cedar Lake Trail connections.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
C:\srf-pw\dms26061\11523_Local Trail Connection.dwg : 8.5X11 VERTJob # 11523 / 137469/16/2021 - 9:35AMLocal Trail Connection AgreementNorth Cedar Lake Regional Trail at Nelson and Dakota ParksSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaExhibit APage 4 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve trail connection agreement with Three Rivers Park District on North Cedar Lake Trail
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: 2021 Fund creation, closure, and budget amendment
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving fund closure, creation, and budget
amendment.
Policy consideration:
•Does the city council wish to approve the general fund balance transfers?
•Does the city council desire to create the climate investment fund?
•Does the city council wish to close funds no longer in use?
Summary: On August 23, 2021 the council discussed our general fund balance over 45% and
recommendations on what to do with that money. Staff is bringing forward a resolution that
authorizes fund balance transfers as outlined at the study session.
Also included in the resolution is language around fund creation and closure. At several prior
council meetings council expressed the desire to create a Climate investment fund.
Additionally, a fund closure due to process improvements that make it unnecessary is being
proposed on that same resolution.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed action will clean up our financials and
authorize money transfers to various funds.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by
the city’s budget.
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: 2021 Fund creation, closure, and budget amendment
Discussion
Background: This report is bringing forward housekeeping items for the finance department. At
the end of calendar year 2020, we analyzed all our funds, long range financial management plan,
and capital improvement plan to determine if transfers should be recommended to meet fund
balance policy requirements, assist with long-term stability of other funds, and provide funding
for specific projects.
Additional general fund levy transfers (budget amendments): At the Aug. 23, 2021 study
session, the fund balance overage from 2020 was discussed and recommendation for transfers
were made. Here are the proposed transfers:
The following is more information on the proposed transfers.
Insurance Fund – Transfer in of $250,000
The Insurance Fund covers the city’s costs of liability and property damage claims not covered
by insurance and costs until the annual deductible and aggregate limits have been met. The
only revenue sources for this fund are claim recoveries from third parties and the annual
property/casualty dividend returned by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. A
transfer of $250,000 is proposed from the General Fund to help with the cost of covering claims
up to our deductible.
Capital replacement fund – Transfer in of $500,000
The Capital replacement fund provides funding for capital projects for various departments
around the City. All our building maintenance and fleet are in the Capital replacement fund. A
transfer of $500,000 is proposed to purchase and install solar panels on the Rec center building.
Pavement Management Fund – Transfer in of $1,500,000
The Pavement Management Fund provides funding for pavement rehabilitation projects within
the city. The primary funding source for pavement management is gas and electric franchise
fees. There were some cost overages in 2018/2019 due to the bidding environment of
significant price increases and fewer bidders.
Employee Benefit Fund – Transfer in of $250,000
The Employee Benefit Fund covers personnel-related costs such as workers compensation,
tuition reimbursement, unemployment, retirement flex leave payouts, wellness, and other
employee initiatives. This fund began receiving a property tax allocation in 2012, as it did not
previously have a dedicated funding source and relied on periodic transfers from the General
Fund. Due to retirements that have occurred and are anticipated, a transfer of $250,000 is
recommended.
Fund Balance Transfers
Insurance Fund 250,000 Increase in Insurance claims
Capital replacement fund 500,000 Solar Panels Rec Center
Pavement Management Fund 1,500,000 Cover fund deficit from prior years
Employee Benefit fund 250,000 Retirements and leave payouts
Sidewalk & Trail Fund 1,450,000 2022 sidewalk/bikeway projects
Climate Investment Fund 500,000 Fund start up
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: 2021 Fund creation, closure, and budget amendment
Sidewalk and Trail Fund – Transfer in of $1,450,000
The sidewalk and trail fund provides funding for gap sidewalk and connect the park in our
pavement rehabilitation projects within the city. This money is to pay for the connect the park
piece of the 2022 projects. It is in our Long-range financial management plan to use cash
instead of debt to alleviate the need to levy more for debt service in 2023. A transfer of
$1,450,000 is recommended.
Climate Investment Fund – Transfer in of $500,000
The Climate investment fund will be a newly created fund that will house our climate programs.
A transfer of $500,000 is recommended to get the fund started.
Fund Creation: One of St Louis Park’s strategic goals is to be a leader in environmental
stewardship. At the March 22, 2021 work session, staff presented the idea of creating a
“Climate Investment Fund” to house the monies for our Climate work. The council agreed with
the idea. The resolution below creates the Climate Investment Fund and transfers $500,000 of
general fund balance to get the fund started. These changes are effective 10-18-21.
Fund Closures: Every year staff reviews the funds and recommends closure if a fund is not used,
or the accounting flow is changing. Staff has identified a fund (Fund 4798 – HRA Levy) that is
being recommended for closure.
Fund 4798 – HRA Levy: This fund is used exclusively for recording the levy and a journal
entry is made to send it back out to the Housing rehab and Affordable housing trust fund.
Staff proposes closing this fund effective 12-31-21. In future years, HRA levy revenue
would be coded directly into the affordable housing trust fund, with a transfer budgeted
to the housing rehab fund for salaries.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: 2021 Fund creation, closure, and budget amendment
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution authorizing budget amendment,
fund creation, and fund closure
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
Whereas, the council wishes to open the Climate Investment Fund to track revenue and
expenditures for our climate action programs; and
Whereas, it is recommended the HRA levy fund be closed effective 1-1-22; and
Whereas, some of those funds rely on transfers from other funds for their continued
operation; and
Whereas, specific one-time expenditures require resources from other funds;
Now therefore be it resolved, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
Approval is hereby given to the Chief Financial Officer to open the Climate Investment Fund,
close the HRA levy fund effective 12-31-21, transfer the following sums of money, and amend
the corresponding budget as of the year ending December 31, 2021 from the General Fund to
the Insurance Fund, Capital Replacement Fund, Pavement Management Fund, Employee
Benefit Fund, Sidewalk and Trail Fund and Climate Investment Fund as shown. All effective 10-
18-21 unless otherwise stated.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
General Fund Insurance Fund $ 250,000
General Fund Capital Replacement Fund $ 500,000
General Fund Pavement Management Fund $ 1,500,000
General Fund Employee Benefit Fund $ 250,000
General Fund Sidewalk and Trail Fund $ 1,450,000
General Fund Climate Investment Fund $ 500,000
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Acceptance of donations to fire department
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting donations for the fire department
open house and community health resource fair.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept these donations for the fire
department open house and community health resource fair?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
The following donations were provided by these businesses for the 2021 fire department open
house and community health resource fair:
• Cub Foods Knollwood $25 gift card
• Cub Foods West End $125 gift card
• Northland Aluminum Products $500 check
• Liberty Packaging $1,500 check
Financial or budget considerations: These donations were used to assist the fire department in
providing food and various supplies needed for the annual fire department open house and
community health resource fair.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Cary Smith, fire marshal
Reviewed by: Steve Koering, fire chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Acceptance of donations to fire department
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving acceptance of donations to fire department
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of
any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must ratify any restrictions placed on the donations by the
donors; and
Whereas, the donations from Cub Foods, Northland Aluminum Products and Liberty
Packaging were directed toward the fire department open house.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park that these donations are
hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Winter trails activity permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing Regional Park Trails)
Recommended action: Motion to approve submission of a permit with Three Rivers Park
District to clear and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the
City of St. Louis Park for the 2021-2023 winter seasons.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue pulling a permit with Three Rivers
Park District for snow removal on the Southwest LRT and Cedar Lake Extension trails?
Summary: The Southwest LRT and the Cedar Lake Extension trails are owned and maintained
by Three Rivers Park District but they do not clear or remove snow from their trails during the
winter. They will allow cities to plow snow from their trails with a permit.
City staff have cleared and removed snow from the regional trails since 2000. This service is
appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year. As a part of the snow removal
policy, staff recommends the City of St. Louis Park continue to clear the regional trails through
our city. This permit would allow us to do so for the winters of 2021-2023.
Clearing or removing snow from the LRT trail will be done in much the same manner and
priority as previous years. The trails would be cleared as a part of the Operations and
Recreation snow removal policy. Clearing the Cedar Lake Extension is a bit more difficult as
some areas of the trails are 10 feet wide with a 12-foot-wide easement. If there are times when
the city gets several inches of snow at one time, it may be difficult for maintenance staff to
remove the snow since there is no room to store it and no way to access the trail to remove it.
Staff will keep the city manager and city council informed if the snow accumulations are
significant and maintenance staff are not able to remove the snow. The permit with Three
Rivers Park District states that the city must repair any damage to the trail while plowing snow.
Staff will take precautions to prevent damage in the snow removal process.
Financial or budget considerations: The resources necessary to undertake this activity are
included in the operating budget. There are no additional expenses expected that are different
from the previous years when we have plowed these trails. Our staff keeps track of the hours
that we plow the regional trails. Three Rivers Park District has reimbursed us for the
2018-2020 snow seasons and will once again submit a request for reimbursement for the dates
on this permit.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Winter trails activity permit
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
2021-2022 WINTER USE PERMIT
Name of City________________________________ City Hall Phone___________________
Contact Person______________________________ Phone___________________________
Contact Person Email Address___________________________________________________
Additional Contact if needed ____________________________________________________
*Indicate whether plowing, grooming, or no maintenance ______________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to ____________________
Authorized 2021/2022 Winter Activities____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to ____________________
Authorized 2021/2022 Winter Activities____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to ____________________
Authorized 2021/2022 Winter Activities____________________________________________
Regional Trail From ____________________________________ to ____________________
Authorized 2021/2022 Winter Activities____________________________________________
Please indicated if you would like the permit for 1, 2, or 3 years.
2021-2022 Winter Season Reimbursement miles per season ________
2021-2023 Winter Seasons
2021-2024 Winter Seasons
Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use portions
of the Regional Trail Corridor for winter use activities from November 1, 2021 through April
15, 2022 (or 2023/2024), as determined by each municipality within guidelines set forth
herein on District Regional Trails located within individual City boundaries.
It is understood and agreed that approval from the Park District Board of Commissioners is
contingent upon the following conditions:
1.The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District, its officials,
officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action,
judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its respective
contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the City, and/or anyone for
whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the winter use of the
Regional Trail Corridor. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the City of
any statutory or common law defenses, immunities, or limits on liability. The City
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Winter trails activity permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing Regional Park Trails)Page 2
cannot be required to pay on behalf of itself and Three Rivers Park District, any
amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter
466. If City maintains general liability insurance at the time this permit is issued, City
shall provide the Park District with a Certificate of Insurance, naming Three Rivers
Park District as an additional named insured.
2.The City agrees to schedule regular trash pick-up that is appropriate to the level of use
expected on the permitted section(s) of trail so as not to create conditions where trash
containers are overflowing or offensively odorous.
3.The City also agrees to maintain the trail, including, but not limited to, any plowing,
sweeping, ice control, packing, and sign replacement, from November 1, 2021 through
April 15, 2022 (or 2023/2024). For ice control on aggregate trails, Cities agree to use
gray colored, 3/8” clear limestone chips from Kraemer North America, Burnsville, MN.
Kraemer North America, formally Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., is the only aggregate
pit that supplies the gray colored limestone that has been specified for use on these
trails. Paved trails can be treated with a Corrosion Inhibited/Treated Rock Salt;
(Specifications: A mixture of Regular Road Salt, Type I, Grade I, ASTM-
D-632 - Modified per MnDOT Specification, blended with a MnDOT
approved magnesium chloride-based product for anti-icing or deicing
use or an approved blend of Regular Road Salt and a magnesium
chloride-based product. The magnesium chloride-based product will also
contain an agricultural processing residue or an alternative MnDOT
approved agent that will depress the effective working temperature and
decrease corrosiveness of the overall compound as well as prevent
leaching of the treating solution)
or other chemical treatments approved by the Park District. The City further agrees to
immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails.
4.The City will provide signage at locations approved by the Park District, notifying the
public of authorized winter activities within its city limits; activities may include, but are
not limited to, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or walking. Winter use
signs must be installed by the City at designated locations prior to November 1, 2021
and removed by the City no later than April 15, 2022. These signs are completely the
responsibility of each municipality.
5.Snowmobiling is not allowed on Park District regional trails. Permitted use for
snowmobiles will be limited to direct crossings only. The Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) does not allow snowmobiling or other motorized use within
its corridors. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail, Minnesota River Bluffs LRT
Regional Trail, Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail, and the Dakota Rail Regional Trail are
located on HCRRA corridor property and permission for a snowmobile crossing of an
HCRRA corridor must be obtained from the HCRRA prior to requesting permission from
the Park District for a snowmobile crossing of the regional trail within the corridor. If a
snowmobile crossing is permitted, cities must take steps to keep snowmobiles from
damaging paved trails, bridges and other property.
6.The City agrees to enforce rules and regulations established by the municipality as part
of its request for a Winter Use Permit.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Winter trails activity permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing Regional Park Trails)Page 3
7.The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail
activities and/or maintenance, including, but not limited to, bituminous/concrete repair,
bridge deck repair, grading or adding aggregate pursuant to guidelines established by
the Park District. The City shall contact the Park District prior to the start of any surface
repairs, for review of proposed repair plans and authorization to proceed.
8.The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons, regardless of
residence.
9.The Park District agrees to reimburse the City for winter maintenance at a rate of $500
per mile of regional trail within City borders per winter season. At the end of the season,
the City shall submit an invoice for reimbursement stating, “Winter Maintenance of
Regional Trails” and send to:
Three Rivers Park District
Attention: Brian Brown
Senior Manager of Parks and Trails Maintenance
3000 Xenium Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
Each City is required to submit its annual permit requests, including proposed rules and
regulations, by October 4, 2021, after which the Park District may take up to 30 business days
to process.
The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time, if the conditions set forth
herein are not followed.
Signed: ______________________________________ Date:_________________________
Title: ______________________________________
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Winter trails activity permit with Three Rivers Park District (plowing Regional Park Trails)Page 4
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4f
Executive summary
Title: Traffic Study 749 – authorize parking restrictions on Flag Avenue
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing parking restrictions on Flag
Avenue.
Policy consideration: Installing and removing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s
established regulatory authority. The request was considered with the city’s traffic control
policy in mind.
Summary: Staff received a request from a member of the community to restrict parking near
the curve of Flag Avenue just north of 36th Street in August 2021. The Traffic committee
reviewed this request at their September meeting.
There are approximately 7 to 10 vehicles that park along both sides of the curve on Flag Avenue
just north of 36th Street. This creates a situation that makes it difficult for larger vehicles to
navigate the curve and that will interfere with snow removal on the trail adjacent to the curb
along the south side of the road.
The traffic committee recommends restricting parking along the:
•South side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to the beginning of the second curve,
approximately 730 feet north of 36th Street.
•North side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to the end of the first curve to the north,
approximately 280 feet north of 36th Street.
A letter was sent to property owners in the surrounding area (75 addresses in total) looking for
comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking restrictions. Seventeen comments
were received. All were in support of the recommended restrictions.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost of installing these parking restrictions is estimated
to be $450 and is expected to come out of the general operating budget. Similar traffic signs
last roughly 10 years in the field.
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
Location map
Resolution
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, sr. engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study 749 – authorize parking restrictions on Flag Avenue
Discussion
Summary: Staff received a request from a member of the community to restrict parking near
the curve of Flag Avenue just north of 36th Street in August 2021. Parking along both sides of
Flag Avenue creates issues for vehicles navigating the curve and for snow removal operations.
Flag Avenue is 30 feet wide and makes a sharp curve just north of 36th Street, with another
sharp curve by Knollwood Green Park. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street
on this segment of Flag Avenue.
Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee group made up of the
engineering, operations and recreation, police, and community development department staff.
The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes
recommendations on possible changes. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking
restrictions are brought to the city council for approval via resolution.
The traffic committee reviewed the request at the September 2021 meeting. When vehicles
are parked along both sides of the curve on Flag Avenue just north of 36th Street, it creates a
situation that makes it difficult for larger vehicles to navigate the curve and that will interfere
with snow removal on the trail adjacent to the curb along the south side of the road. To address
this, the committee recommended the following parking restrictions:
•South side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to the end of the second curve,
approximately 730 feet north of 36th Street.
•North side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to the end of the first curve to the north,
approximately 280 feet north of 36th Street.
A letter was sent to property owners in the surrounding area (75 addresses in total) looking for
comments and concerns regarding the recommended parking restrictions. Seventeen residents
commented on the recommendation. All are in support of limiting parking along Flag Avenue
north of 36th Street. Some suggested changing the extents for the no parking to include Flag
Avenue up to Minnehaha Circle South.
Staff considered this feedback and have updated their recommendation, extending the parking
restrictions to the beginning of the second curve, near Knollwood Green Park. To accommodate
park users, staff does not recommend restricting parking adjacent to the park. The resolution
reflects this updated recommendation.
HHII
GGHHWWAAYY1166993366TTHH SSTTWW
MINNEHAHA CIR SMINNEHAHA CIR S
PHILLIPS PKWYPHILLIPS PKWYFLAG AVE SFLAG AVE S
0 250 500125
Feet
Recommended Parking Restrictions on Flag Ave S
All-day
parking restriction
(both sides)
All-day
parking restriction
(south side)
Page 3 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Traffic Study 749 – authorize parking restrictions on Flag Avenue
Resolution No. 21-____
Authorizing parking restrictions on Flag Avenue,
north of 36th Street
Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to install parking restrictions on
Flag Avenue north of 36th Street; and,
Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended restricting
parking on segments of Flag Avenue north of 36th Street; and,
Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make
their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that the engineering director is authorized to:
1.Install parking restrictions on the south side of 36th Street from 36th Street to 730
feet north and west of the right of way line of 36th Street to the beginning of the
second radius curve north of 36th Street.
2.Install parking restriction on the north side of Flag Avenue from 36th Street to 280
feet north and west of the right of way line of 36th Street to the end of the radius
of the first curve north of 36th Street.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Page 4City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Traffic Study 749 – authorize parking restrictions on Flag Avenue
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4g
Executive summary
Title: SWLRT subordinate funding agreement
Recommended action: Motion to approve a subordinate funding agreement (Agreement)
between the city and Metropolitan Council for monitoring wells.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support Metropolitan Council funding the city’s
direct costs to replace and reinstall Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) monitoring
wells that were rendered inoperative by the SWLRT Project?
Summary: SWLRT Project contractors damaged or closed monitoring wells within the SWLRT
Project area that are needed to test ground water and monitor water quality. MPCA and city
staff are coordinating to identify alternative well locations and provide cost estimates to
replace and reinstall the wells.
A copy of the proposed Agreement is attached. The budget is outlined in Exhibit A to the
agreement. The budget includes project management, well installations, reporting and extra
monitoring. Metropolitan Council agrees to pay for the city’s costs to remedy the issue.
MPCA staff has identified two suitable locations for all five of the replacement monitoring wells
to be installed. MPCA and city staff are working to secure access agreements from the property
owners. The locations will likely be adjacent to the railroad right-of-way on private properties. A
map of the new well locations will be inserted as Exhibit B to the Agreement after the locations
have been finalized and access agreements are secured.
City staff are working to install the replacement monitoring wells before the end of the year
and ideally before there is frost in the ground.
Financial or budget considerations: The Agreement authorizes payment to the city for up to
$125,190 unless a subsequent agreement or amendment to this agreement is approved by all
parties. City staff find this will be adequate to cover all the city’s direct costs.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Subordinate funding agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: SWLRT subordinate funding agreement
Reference Numbers:
SWLRT Project:61001
Metropolitan Council: 14I061M
City of St. Louis Park:
PROJECT: SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
MASTER AGREEMENT: Master Funding Agreement – City of St. Louis Park
PARTIES TO AGREEMENT: •Metropolitan Council (“Council”)
•City of St. Louis Park (“City”)
SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT
City of St. Louis Park – 13 (MPCA Wells)
This Subordinate Funding Agreement (“SFA”) Number 13 with the City of St. Louis Park is
entered into by and between the above-named Parties.
WHEREAS:
1.The Parties entered into a Southwest Light Rail Transit Project (“Project”) Master Funding
Agreement (“MFA”) effective February 3, 2015. The parties subsequently amended the
MFA on November 17, 2015.
2.The Parties provided in the MFA that certain aspects of funding for the Project would be
determined in subsequent SFAs.
3.The Parties desire to enter into this Subordinate Funding Agreement in order to provide
funding for the Project as described below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in reliance on the statements in these recitals, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
1.Maximum Amount Authorized for this Agreement. The cost for City activities
authorized by this SFA shall not exceed $125,190 unless authorized in a subsequent
agreement or an amendment to this SFA.
2.Project Budget. Council budget for City activities described in this SFA is set forth in
Exhibit A, entitled “Budget” and which is incorporated herein. Funds provided pursuant to
this SFA may only be used for reimbursing the City’s costs for activities directly incurred
within the described Specific Description of Funding Authorization below, and as detailed
in the MFA
3.Specific Description of Funding Authorization. The Council will reimburse the City for
actual labor, material, and equipment costs related to the replacement and reinstallation of
monitoring wells rendered inoperative by the SWLRT Project. The monitoring wells are
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: SWLRT subordinate funding agreement
identified in Exhibit B, entitled “MPCA Monitoring Well Locations” and which is
incorporated herein. The scope of work included in this work contains St. Louis Park city
staff time for coordination and administrative tasks, cost to reinstall monitoring wells, and
additional MPCA sampling as required for new wells.
4.Project Activity Periods. The project activity period for the purposes of this SFA shall be
effective upon execution and shall terminate on the date all costs under this SFA have been
reimbursed, unless terminated earlier consistent with the terms of the MFA.
5.Vendor Agreement. This SFA, in conjunction with the MFA, constitutes a vendor
agreement for the purposes of any federal grant funds passed through to the City hereby.
6.Incorporation. The terms, conditions, and definitions of the MFA are expressly
incorporated into this SFA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this SFA to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives on the dates indicated below. Furthermore, this SFA may be executed
in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, taken together,
shall constitute one and the same agreement.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By: By:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
By:
Its:
Date:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Title: SWLRT subordinate funding agreement
Exhibit A: Budget
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4g) Page 5
Title: SWLRT subordinate funding agreement
Exhibit B: MPCA Monitoring Well Locations
INSERT MAP
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4h
Executive summary
Title: Special assessment – water service line repair at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the water service line at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0019.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Irina Kuzmina, owner of the single-family residence at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard,
has requested the city authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess
the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city
to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible
cost of the repair has been determined to be $4,500.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Emily Carr, assessing technician
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Special assessment – water service line repair at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
water service line at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0019
Whereas, the property owner at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard, has petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard; and
Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2.The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of
Inspections is hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $4,500.
4.The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5.The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 3.50%.
6.The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4i
Official minutes
Planning commission
August 18, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Sam Tift, Joffrey Wilson
Members absent: Imran Dagane, Tom Weber
Staff present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther
Guests: City residents
1.Call to order – roll call
2.Approval of minutes – August 4, 2021
Chair Eckholm noted three corrections in the study session minutes:
•The minutes state “Chair Eckholm stated he would like to see EV chargers at gas
stations, as well”. Chair Eckholm knows, from the previous discussion around the
EV charging ordinance, that we already have an EV level 2 requirement for gas
stations. He was hoping to see that we would update that to EV level 3.
•Regarding the comment around level 3 conduit being added for underground
and structured parking. The conversation was more in the sense of requiring
more level 2 conduit, not specifically level 3 conduit, in apartment buildings.
•There was no mention of the proposed policy targets that we were discussing.
We stated that if we wanted to go bold, we should aim for a 50% target.
It was moved by Commissioner Kraft and seconded by Commission Wilson to approve
the minutes of August 4, 2021, with corrections. The motion passed 5-0.
3.Hearings
3a. Land use and zoning changes at Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No: 21-29-CP, 21-30-ZA
Ms. Kramer presented the report.
Chair Eckholm asked how the traffic generated by a 30-unit apartment building
compared to a gas station. Ms. Kramer stated a gas station generally generates more
traffic daily.
Commissioner Beneke stated there was conversation at the neighborhood meeting of a
possible trail connection between Minnetonka Boulevard and Utica Avenue or from
Utica to Vernon and asked how this works.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Planning commission meeting minutes August 18, 2021
Ms. Kramer stated there is no plan for how the trail might work. She noted the question
was raised to see if there was interest in a more pedestrian connections but there are
no city plans or designs for this.
Commissioner Beneke asked if the lot size is fixed or if there is room for a trail. Ms.
Kramer stated a trail could be accommodated with an easement or right of way
dedication when a development is proposed on the site.
Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing.
Jon Olson, 2919 Vernon Avenue South, noted he and his wife have lived on Vernon
Avenue for 35 years; adding it is a very busy street, to avoid traffic on Highway 100. He
stated he does want to change the zoning in this area, so that anyone coming or leaving
the property and exiting onto Vernon Avenue will change. He stated there is a gas
station across the street and another on Lake Street and several others as well, so he is
not sure why a gas station would want to be in this location.
Marnie Lazarus, 2926 Utica Avenue South, stated this property is in her back yard. She is
against opening Utica Avenue, and to open it would be more traffic, more crime and
cutting in and out, adding nobody on Utica wants this.
Barb Heinz, 2801 Vernon Avenue South, stated she is in full agreement that a gas station
would not be the best asset. She is concerned about having residential there also and is
worried about more construction projects. She would like to see more affordable
housing within existing apartments in St. Louis Park versus building another apartment
building. She is not interested in a walking path there either. She stated she checked
with businesses in the area also to see about their concerns. She added the old gas
station was a crime creator and she would not be interested in a gas station.
Davonna Sand, Sumter Avenue South, noted she is an ISAIAH member and in support of
multi-family housing in St. Louis Park at the location being discussed.
Lisa Overlin, 5524 Minnetonka Boulevard, noted she has a problem with the gas station
and the apartment as it is already very congested in that location. She stated whatever
is in there needs to be very small, due to traffic. She stated it is a bad corner as it is and
can’t imagine cars turning into the location.
Claudia Oxley, 2931 Vernon Avenue South, noted she is an ISAIAH member and she does
agree about traffic in the area. If there is a gas station, traffic will back up on
Minnetonka Boulevard, which will disallow emergency vehicles from getting through.
She is opposed to the gas station and believes many of the pro comments are related to
convenience and that many don’t like the Marathon Station. She stated it is important
to build more affordable housing in St. Louis Park.
Ron Werner, 2148 Glenhurst Road, stated he is not in the neighborhood, but asked the
commissioners who would want to live on top of a freeway and why stick affordable
housing in this area. He asked why every open piece of land in St. Louis Park needs to be
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Planning commission meeting minutes August 18, 2021
converted and developed. He noted many think if they see another multi-unit
apartment building, it will take folks over the brink. He stated he thinks the area should
be converted to green space, something St. Louis Park has little of, with all their
unprecedented development. He stated plant trees there and this strategy would fit in
with the city environmental plan. A gas station opens too much traffic into the
community and is unacceptable. He asked how this housing would add aesthetics or
make the city better. Green space would be attractive in the area and be an
environmental asset.
Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing.
Chair Eckholm stated he appreciated the last caller. If the city had the first right to the
property, this would be a good use to consider, but it’s out of the city’s control. He
stated regarding people living above a freeway, some people might not have a choice as
to where they live. He stated anywhere we can build in a “built-out” city, should happen
and when we see something like this, affordable housing should be included.
Mr. Walther stated there was no city contemplation of a road connection of Utica
Avenue to Minnetonka Boulevard. It was pointed out at the neighborhood meeting that
the subject property might seek a driveway access to Utica, in addition to an access on
Vernon.
Commissioner Wilson thanked everyone for their comments. He stated whenever there
is an opportunity for development in the community, the areas of discussion include the
themes that were raised during this hearing including affordable housing, sustainability,
and safety, which are all important. He stated the commission will look further into
these areas when addressing this development and future developments.
Commissioner Kraft stated she knows this area as she lives in the neighborhood. She
shares the concerns for traffic on Vernon and no matter what goes onto the site will be
a concern. She stated there are many things it could become, and it could be a smaller
development, with a shorter height, and she is in support of rezoning the property.
Commissioner Beneke also supports the rezoning for housing. He stated hopefully the
city will guide what goes in there and control the traffic issues also. He added hopefully
the driveway access will be something the city can control and works with potential
developers to provide guidance.
It was moved by Commissioner Beneke and seconded by Commission Wilson to approve
the land use and zoning changes at Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100 as
presented and recommend it to the city council.
The motion passed unanimously.
4.Other Business
5.Communications
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Planning commission meeting minutes August 18, 2021
Mr. Walther noted the next meeting is September 1st and main item will be a public
hearing for a PUD for mixed use apartment building for people ages 55 and older at
3510 Beltline Boulevard. He stated a study session is planned for September 22 to tour
one or two recent developments. Mr. Walther stated City Council adopted the home
occupations ordinance, a CUP amendment for Wat Prom, and approved transferring the
contract for development at the former Olive Garden site to a new developer and that
could begin construction soon.
Mr. Walther stated City Manager Kim Keller started Monday, August 23.
Mr. Walther stated 2020 census data was released. The official count for St. Louis Park
was 50,010 which was a 10.5% increase since 2010, which was higher than recent
estimates. He thanked all that participated in the outreach efforts to encourage self-
response to the Census that helped ensure a complete and accurate count.
6.Adjournment – 6:42 p.m.
Sean Walther Matt Eckholm
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, chair member
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4j
Official minutes
Planning commission
September 1, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Sam Tift, Tom Weber, Joffrey Wilson
Members absent: Imran Dagane
Staff present: Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther
Guests: Andy Bollig, Christine Picard
1.Call to order – roll call
2.Approval of minutes – none
3.Hearings
3a. Development proposal for 3510 Beltline Blvd
Applicant: Roers Companies
Case No: 21-27-S, 21-28-PUD
Ms. Monson presented the report.
Commissioner Beneke asked about the affordable units and if anyone can live in those
units. Mr. Bollig, a developer with Roers Companies, stated everyone in the building
must be 55 and older, including in the live-work units.
Commissioner Beneke asked what types of live-work businesses are allowed. Ms.
Monson stated they are similar to home occupation. Customers can also come to the
unit and is treated more like a commercial use. She noted that any change in
commercial use would need to have a registration of land use and certificate of
occupancy.
Commissioner Wilson liked the design and stated he sees items in the design that
address the aging population. He asked about the developer’s approach to economic
inclusion, partner firms and how dollars will be spent.
Mr. Bollig stated throughout the design process they are pushing for equity through all
the facets of the development, using both minority and women owned businesses, with
equitable design and process. He stated they are committed to this as the city is also.
The architect, Ms. Picard, also addressed these issues noting they are looking at spa
features and pickle ball courts as well for their target market.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Planning commission meeting minutes September 1, 2021
Commissioner Weber asked if there is a left turn lane to get into the development. Ms.
Monson stated there will be a center turn lane added to the street as part of the city’s
restriping project this summer which will convert the road from four to three lanes and
provide bike lanes.
Commissioner Weber asked about Beltline and the fact that staff said there was not a
need for more traffic studies here. Ms. Monson stated that is still the case.
Commissioner Weber asked if the proposed building and the recently approved building
to the north will complement each other. The architect stated they considered that
project in their design. She stated the scale and materiality will be similar to the other
building. She added they want to fit into the context of the neighborhood, especially
near the Bass Lake Preserve.
Commissioner Weber asked what the speed limit will be on Beltline Boulevard after the
city project is completed. Mr. Walther stated it will be reduced from 30 mph to 25 mph.
Commissioner Kraft commented the live-work units add interest. She asked how the
units will be managed to make sure they are doing what is required. Mr. Bollig stated
the units will have lease guidelines they will need to abide by.
Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing.
There were no callers on the line or speakers present.
Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Beneke made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, to
recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat and PUD, subject to
recommendations by staff. The motion was approved 6-0.
4.Other Business
5.Communications
5a. Zoning text amendment: parking requirements
Mr. Walther stated this is an update from the last study session. He noted minor
adjustments were made and noted in the staff report. Mr. Walther also stated staff
intends to explore adjustments to parking requirements for outdoor seating in the next
draft of the ordinance, as a another means of promoting outdoor seating.
Chair Eckholm asked if electric vehicle parking will go from 15% to five percent and what
the intention of this is. Mr. Walther stated he will clarify this in the next report.
Commissioner Beneke stated he likes the balance of parking and suggested high-volume
restaurants should have a higher requirement for parking.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Planning commission meeting minutes September 1, 2021
Commissioner Weber asked if the development that was just presented would have
been required to have different requirements for parking, if it were subject to the
proposed text amendment. Mr. Walther stated it would had to have more level 2 EV
chargers and conduit for future level 2 chargers, instead of level 1. Ms. Monson stated
the overall parking counts would remain the same as what was presented today.
Chair Eckholm stated there is a maximum on large retail centers now and asked if this
will be reduced in the future. Mr. Walther confirmed there is a maximum now, and it is
within the range expected within the market while also working to achieve city goals of
reducing areas paved over for parking lots also.
Mr. Walther stated the next meeting will be on September 22 at 6 p.m., which will be a
study session and a tour of two recently completed developments – The Quentin and
The Elmwood. He noted this has been a helpful exercise for staff and commissions to
review and look at issues to inform the review of future development proposals.
Commissioner Wilson asked for staff to prepare questions to prompt feedback from the
commission during the tour. Mr. Walther agreed to do so.
Mr. Walther stated there will be public hearings on October 6, one is a variance
application for the board of zoning appeals and the other is an apartment building
development application. He added the meeting will be held in the community room on
the first floor of City Hall.
6.Adjournment – 6:45 p.m.
Sean Walther Matt Eckholm
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, chair member
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4k
Official minutes
Planning commission
September 22, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Sam Tift, Tom Weber
Members absent: Imran Dagane, Joffrey Wilson
Staff present: Jennifer Monson, Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther
City staff and commissioners toured The Elmwood, 5605 36th Street West, and The Quentin,
4900 Cedar Lake Road.
Sean Walther Matt Eckholm
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, chair member
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Action agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Recommended action: Motion to appoint youth representatives to the boards and
commissions as listed in exhibit A.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to appoint the youth representatives listed in
exhibit A to serve on the boards and commissions listed for the respective terms?
Summary: Youth members are appointed annually to one-year terms. Applications for
reappointment were received from each of the individuals listed in Exhibit A. Each of these
students have been fantastic members on their respective commissions and are interested in
continuing their work in service to the community. Staff is recommending reappointment of
these individuals to ensure their work on their commissions is not interrupted.
The city is conducting ongoing recruitment for open youth positions on the city’s various boards
and commissions. As applications are received for remaining openings they will be brought to
council for review and consideration in accordance with the standard process for appointment.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Exhibit A
Applications
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Exhibit A
Name Board/Commission Term Expiration
Lillian Hertel Environment & Sustainability – youth member 8/31/2022
Andre Barajas Human Rights Commission – youth member 8/31/2022
Li Livdahl Human Right Commission – youth member 8/31/2022
From:info@stlouispark.org
To:Debbie Fischer; Melissa Kennedy
Subject:Boards and commissions application
Date:Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:12:31 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.
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Boards and Commissions Application-2021
Date & Time:August 10, 2021 7:12 p.m.
Response #:51
Submitter ID:17682
IP address:66.41.128.207
Time to complete:20 min. , 41 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Name
First name Lillian Last name Hertel
Address
Street address 2833 Joppa Ave S City St. Louis Park
State Minnesota ZIP code 55416
Email
hertellillian05@gmail.com
Phone number
612.839.5026
What is your race/ethnicity? (optional)
(○) White (not Hispanic or Latino)
Application type
(○) Reappointment
If you are a student, what grade are you in?
(○) 11
Page 3 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
I am seeking reappointment to the following board or commission:
(○) Environment and sustainability commission (ESC)
If you are a new applicant seeking appointment to a board or commission, let us know the top three
board(s) or commission(s) on which you would like to serve and why.
What board/commission is your first choice?
(○) Environment and sustainability commission (ESC)
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
I've been involved with environmental advocacy on pretty much every level from local to international for
the past few years, and though COVID has stifled some organizing efforts over much of that time, issues like
climate change don't stop for a virus. I've really enjoyed the past year of being able to serve on the ESC, and
have learned a ton throughout each meeting. I'd love to continue learning more about St. Louis Park's
policies and initiatives, and hopefully attend more in-person meetings if safe to do so, as the one I was able
to make was a great experience.
What board/commission is your second choice?
Not answered
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
Not answered
What board/commission is your third choice?
Not answered
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
Not answered
Briefly describe one to three goals/initiatives you feel are important to your overall vision for St. Louis
Park that you would like to see addressed by the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
There's been a lot of work done by the ESC so far to address intersectionality within environmental issues,
but it's one that I feel we can never do enough about. I think it would be great to have more interactions
and potentially more events with the community surrounding environmental justice work, and help SLP
residents get involved with the commission beyond attending meetings and staying informed.
Describe how your work experience, educational background, training, community, civic and volunteer
experiences have prepared you to serve on the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
You may upload a resume if desired.
Outreach Team -- Minnesota Youth for Climate Justice (2 years)
I work outreach team, helping increase turnout for strikes and other events and advocating on statewide
Page 4 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
issues such as the halting of the Line 3 Pipeline. This has given me a lot of knowledge surrounding local
issues and what other local governments are doing.
Community Involvement Coordinator, Steering Committee Member -- Civics Unplugged (1.5 years)
At CU, I do just about everything from increasing community engagement to delegating funds to youth-led
organizations. The main reason I'm really interested in community building is because of the community
we've been able to cultivate over the past few years at CU.
Intern -- Office of Jacob Frey (4 months)
I've been engaged with text and phone banking efforts on Mayor Frey's current mayoral campaign. Through
this, I've spoken to some Minneapolis residents about social and environmental (often both) issues that are
important to them, and gained a lot of new perspectives.
Barista -- Barnes and Noble (1 month)
I just started working at Barnes and Noble, serving customers in the cafe as a barista.
Student -- Benilde St. Margaret's (2 years)
I'm currently a rising junior at Benilde-St. Margaret's, and enjoy challenging myself academically, especially
in classes related to government and environmental science.
Resume
Membership and terms
1. The city council will not consider applications from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park
employees, or seasonal, temporary, paid on call firefighter or contract employees if
appointment could cause a conflict of interest.
2. The city council will not appoint a board and/or commission member to serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission (not including the charter commission), and
commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members
cannot serve on the same commission as a member of the immediate family, registered
domestic partner or members of the same household. Youth are exempt from this provision.
Conflicts of interest
No commissioner shall:
Enter into any contract with the city unless otherwise authorized by law.
Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result in
any impropriety or conflict of interest.
Important information about your application
Page 5 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Data privacy notice
Minnesota law requires that you be informed of the purposes and intended uses of the information
you are providing on this application. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your name, city
of residence, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors are public data and are
available to anyone who requests the information. The data that you give us about yourself is also
needed to identify you and assist in determining your suitability for the commission(s) for which you
are applying. This data is not legally required, but refusal to supply the information requested may
affect the city council’s ability to evaluate your application. Should you be appointed to serve on a
board or commission, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your residential address and
either a telephone number or electronic mail address (or both) where you can be reached also become
public information.
I have read and understand the data privacy information given above and authorize investigation of all
statements contained in this application as may be necessary to arrive at an appointment decision. I
certify that all answers given here are true, and I understand that any false information on or omission
of information from this application will be cause for rejection of this application.
Electronic signature
First name Lillian Last name Hertel
Date August 10, 2021
Thank you,
St. Louis Park, MN
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Page 6 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
From:info@stlouispark.org
To:Debbie Fischer; Melissa Kennedy
Subject:Boards and commissions application
Date:Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:09:53 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.
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Boards and Commissions Application-2021
Date & Time:October 06, 2021 9:09 p.m.
Response #:54
Submitter ID:17952
IP address:2601:441:4000:b2f0:b59c:7900:3970:e45b
Time to complete:38 min. , 49 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Name
First name Andre Last name Barajas
Address
Street address 9116 Minnehaha
Court
City St Louis Park
State Minnesota ZIP code 55426
Email
andrebarajas2000@gmail.com
Phone number
612.578.8103
What is your race/ethnicity? (optional)
(○) Hispanic or Latino
Application type
(○) Reappointment
If you are a student, what grade are you in?
Page 7 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
(○) 12
I am seeking reappointment to the following board or commission:
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
If you are a new applicant seeking appointment to a board or commission, let us know the top three
board(s) or commission(s) on which you would like to serve and why.
What board/commission is your first choice?
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
Reappointment
What board/commission is your second choice?
Not answered
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
Not answered
What board/commission is your third choice?
Not answered
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
Not answered
Briefly describe one to three goals/initiatives you feel are important to your overall vision for St. Louis
Park that you would like to see addressed by the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
After serving on the HRC for a year, my goals for the commission have changed drastically. Originally, many
of my goals were more focused on the HRC’s interactions and impact on the public, however, after this
year, more of my goals are now oriented towards the HRC’s place in St Louis Park and the relationship it has
with the city council. Primarily, my goal is to better define the role the HRC has with the city council. Yes,
we are present to advise the council, however, what power do we have to act ourselves. Human and civil
rights are not something that can just wait a few months for the council to hear about. The lengthy
communication time between the council and the HRC hurts both entities' images. Because of this, I think it
should be stressed that HRC’s role is better defined. In the same thought, the jurisdiction the HRC has over
community outreach and improvement should also be better defined. The main goal of the HRC is to
promote equity in the community. However, when the commission must go through lengthy processes with
the council to establish any action, it becomes difficult to have that outreach. For example, the HRC’s bias
and hate crime review are very limited. There have been a few occasions where there is a certain hate
crime where we believe some sort of action must be taken, such as support statements, however, the HRC
does not have defined by-laws to act on our ideas. This usually leads to complacency rather than action.
Instead, my goal for the commission is to better define our power through by-laws and also define our
Page 8 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
power relating to the jurisdiction of the council. Finally, my goal for this next year is to promote more
community engagement and action. I believe our George Floyd Memorial Walk was a great start in
promoting action in the community, however, there is so much more we can do as a commission to engage
with residents and promote equity. My goal is to sponsor seasonal activities in the community, such as
community events for Black History Month, AAPI heritage month, etc.
Describe how your work experience, educational background, training, community, civic and volunteer
experiences have prepared you to serve on the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
You may upload a resume if desired.
I’ve lived in SLP my whole life, while that may only be 17 years, it's a lot of years to me. That in itself does
not qualify me for the HRC, but I think it gives me a good position to talk about areas where the community
can improve on, it's all things I’ve seen before. At home, I’ve grown up in a bi-cultural house, getting
influenced by both my Mexican culture and American culture. The different perspectives I’ve grown up
under have given me a duality that I can look at issues and conflicts with. This same duality has drawn me
especially close to issues on human rights, specifically the rights of immigrants and abuses of the U.S on the
southern border. Additionally, I believe my experiences and involvement at school have prepared me to
serve on the HRC. I’m involved with SOAR (students organized for anti-racism) whose work closely aligns
with that of the HRC and where I believe partnerships can very well be created. I’m also involved with
DECA, where I’m the president, and also I’m on the swim team, where I’m a captain. While these activities
in no way transfer to the work done on the HRC, they have prepared me to serve on the HRC by giving me
valuable leadership experience and have taught me how to better communicate with those around me. My
experiences this summer in the Bank of America Student Leaders Program have best prepared me to serve
on the HRC. The student leaders program connected me with like-minded youth across the nation where
we were able to discuss community issues, ranging from racial inequality to taxation, and immigration. This
experience gave me a much better perspective on issues that youth face in communities outside of my
own. It also gave me ideas for how I can better be a changing force in my community. My exposure to these
experiences has helped me prepare to serve on the HRC. I hope that with this next year I can be a better,
more committed member of the commission and where I hope to be a better agent of change in the
community.
Resume
Membership and terms
1. The city council will not consider applications from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park
employees, or seasonal, temporary, paid on call firefighter or contract employees if
appointment could cause a conflict of interest.
2. The city council will not appoint a board and/or commission member to serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission (not including the charter commission), and
commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members
cannot serve on the same commission as a member of the immediate family, registered
domestic partner or members of the same household. Youth are exempt from this provision.
Conflicts of interest
No commissioner shall:
Page 9 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Enter into any contract with the city unless otherwise authorized by law.
Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result in
any impropriety or conflict of interest.
Important information about your application
Data privacy notice
Minnesota law requires that you be informed of the purposes and intended uses of the information
you are providing on this application. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your name, city
of residence, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors are public data and are
available to anyone who requests the information. The data that you give us about yourself is also
needed to identify you and assist in determining your suitability for the commission(s) for which you
are applying. This data is not legally required, but refusal to supply the information requested may
affect the city council’s ability to evaluate your application. Should you be appointed to serve on a
board or commission, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your residential address and
either a telephone number or electronic mail address (or both) where you can be reached also become
public information.
I have read and understand the data privacy information given above and authorize investigation of all
statements contained in this application as may be necessary to arrive at an appointment decision. I
certify that all answers given here are true, and I understand that any false information on or omission
of information from this application will be cause for rejection of this application.
Electronic signature
First name Andre Last name Barajas
Date October 06, 2021
Thank you,
St. Louis Park, MN
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Page 10 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
From:info@stlouispark.org
To:Debbie Fischer; Melissa Kennedy
Subject:Boards and commissions application
Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:27:37 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.
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Boards and Commissions Application-2021
Date & Time:October 12, 2021 11:27 a.m.
Response #:55
Submitter ID:17969
IP address:2607:fb90:9889:495d:cd0f:574f:75d9:1473
Time to complete:8 min. , 48 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Name
First name Li Last name Livdahl
Address
Street address 3332 Huntington
Avenue S
City St. Louis Park
State Minnesota ZIP code 55416
Email
li.livdahl@gmail.com
Phone number
612.267.8286
What is your race/ethnicity? (optional)
(○) Asian (not Hispanic or Latino)
Application type
(○) Reappointment
If you are a student, what grade are you in?
Page 11 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
(○) 12
I am seeking reappointment to the following board or commission:
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
If you are a new applicant seeking appointment to a board or commission, let us know the top three
board(s) or commission(s) on which you would like to serve and why.
What board/commission is your first choice?
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
As I've been on this commission for the past year, I have learned so much and would love to continue this
learning through my senior year. I feel that I've shown that I am passionate about social justice through my
continued participation and willingness to go beyond what is typically expected (joining the subcommittee,
hosting events, etc.). I feel I bring a lot to the table, but more importantly, I feel I am very good at listening
and am excited to learn from my fellow commission members.
What board/commission is your second choice?
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
N/A
What board/commission is your third choice?
(○) Human rights commission (HRC)
Why are you interested in volunteering for this board/commission?
N/A
Briefly describe one to three goals/initiatives you feel are important to your overall vision for St. Louis
Park that you would like to see addressed by the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
Throughout my year on the HRC, I have learned a lot about how city government runs and have furthered
my interest in social justice and how our local government works with its citizens to achieve progress.
Something that I hope we can integrate into our commission is having a more open forum with the people
of St. Louis Park on the issues they hope to see tackled and how they would like the commission, and really
city council in general, to address their concerns. I know that we have been taking steps to do this and I
hope that if I am reelected I can continue to help in the growth of the board. I feel like one way to stay
connected with the community is through events such as the George Floyd Memorial and the other
Summer of Action inititives. While I was on the subcommittee and as I participated in those events, I felt a
greater sense of community and connectedness and that is something I would love to see continued from
the HRC.
Page 12 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Describe how your work experience, educational background, training, community, civic and volunteer
experiences have prepared you to serve on the board(s) or commission(s) you are applying for.
You may upload a resume if desired.
As I've gotten a lot more into politics and social activism and have experience programs that allow me to
explore this field, I have fostered a passion to learn more and stay involved. Besides my participation with
the HRC and the Summer of Action Subcommittee, I stay engaged by partaking in other activities such as
my school's student council, of which I am president this year, as well as activities such as an internship
with Mayor Frey of Minneapolis. Whenever I am notified of an opportunity to get involved and grow, both
in my knowledge of politics or in general, I make sure to take advantage of it and put my all into it. I think
one of my strongest attributes is my willingness to do or try anything and my drive to go above and beyond
in my work. Through juggling all of my activities, I have learned to be very organized and how to manage my
time well in order to give all of my commitments the effort they deserve. I enjoy being busy as I feel like I
learn best and have had the best experiences when I am doing many different activities or am interacting
with many different people. I enjoy hearing other people's perspectives, even if they don't necessarily
match mine, and I feel the HRC has allowed me to see things from a lens I never would've gotten to see
otherwise. I would love to continue to learn from and participate in the very important conversations that
the HRC has; I have already learned so much and this group has already helped me in so many ways. I value
the time we have together and feel there is still so far to go and I would be a valuable asset in helping the
group get where we eventually want to be. I think that overall I am a very hard worker and am very
dedicated to staying involved and growing my knowledge about local and general politics, as reflected by
my participation in many of the activities seen on my resume.
Resume
Resume Li Livdahl.docx
Membership and terms
1. The city council will not consider applications from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park
employees, or seasonal, temporary, paid on call firefighter or contract employees if
appointment could cause a conflict of interest.
2. The city council will not appoint a board and/or commission member to serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission (not including the charter commission), and
commissioners may only serve one consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members
cannot serve on the same commission as a member of the immediate family, registered
domestic partner or members of the same household. Youth are exempt from this provision.
Conflicts of interest
No commissioner shall:
Enter into any contract with the city unless otherwise authorized by law.
Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result in
any impropriety or conflict of interest.
Page 13 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Important information about your application
Data privacy notice
Minnesota law requires that you be informed of the purposes and intended uses of the information
you are providing on this application. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your name, city
of residence, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors are public data and are
available to anyone who requests the information. The data that you give us about yourself is also
needed to identify you and assist in determining your suitability for the commission(s) for which you
are applying. This data is not legally required, but refusal to supply the information requested may
affect the city council’s ability to evaluate your application. Should you be appointed to serve on a
board or commission, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your residential address and
either a telephone number or electronic mail address (or both) where you can be reached also become
public information.
I have read and understand the data privacy information given above and authorize investigation of all
statements contained in this application as may be necessary to arrive at an appointment decision. I
certify that all answers given here are true, and I understand that any false information on or omission
of information from this application will be cause for rejection of this application.
Electronic signature
First name Li Last name Livdahl
Date October 12, 2021
Thank you,
St. Louis Park, MN
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Page 14 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Discussion item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Appointment to Planning Commission
Recommended action: Motion to appoint Michael Salzer to the Planning Commission for the
term ending May 31, 2023.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: Board members are appointed to 3-year terms on the Planning Commission,
beginning May 31 of each year. Vacancies may occur upon the resignation of a board member.
If available, an alternate is then appointed to fill the remainder of the term. If appointed,
Michael Salzer will fill a vacant position on the Planning Commission with a term ending on May
31, 2023. Following appointment by the council, Michael will receive notification of the
appointment.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the
public hearing. No Further action. Approval of Resolution will take place at the Nov. 15, 2021
city council meeting.
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to collect outstanding fees and charges
through the special assessment process?
Summary: The city certifies delinquent balances to Hennepin County as a means to collect on
these accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien
on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending upon the
type of charge. Information on the 2021 certification process is provided in the following
discussion.
Financial or budget considerations: Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of
the city’s utility systems and to reimburse the city for expenses incurred in providing services.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Sample certification letter
Resolution
Prepared by: April Weller, billing supervisor
Reviewed by: Sharae Sledge, finance manager
Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
Discussion
Background: Each of the customers involved in this special assessment process received a city
service. Subsequently, the customers were then billed through our regular billing process. The
invoice(s) is/are now past due, and the recommended method of collecting the past due
amounts is through certification as a special assessment to the property for the next year or
years taxes depending on the type of delinquency. In advance of the public hearing date,
individual letters were mailed to property owners advising them of the assessment and their
right to be heard before the city council. Per council policy, all delinquent utility accounts have
been assessed a $15 administrative fee. This fee is not included in the 2021 amount below so as
to provide consistent comparative data. The table below shows comparison data from 2017 -
2021 in relation to the number of letters mailed and value of delinquent amounts.
Year Number of Letters Delinquent Amounts Final Certification Amounts
2021 1392 $850,517 N/A
2020 1283 $739,944 $457,411
2019 1660 $946,731 $457,112
2018 1413 $832,955 $507,671
2017 1894 $952,953 $528,208
In 2020 the city responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by waiving late penalties for utility
customers starting March 17, 2020 until July 26, 2021. On July 26, 2021, the city began
assessing penalties to past due utility accounts again, following the end of the emergency order
by the Governor of Minnesota.
Each year there are a number of residents who pay their delinquent amount(s) before the
certification deadline, thereby reducing the final amount certified and sent to Hennepin
County. During the month of October, there are several hundred property owners who contact
the City with questions about their outstanding balance(s) and the certification process. The
delinquent balance was $567,123 as of the close of business on Oct. 12, 2021. Staff will provide
the delinquent amount balance as of the close of business on Oct. 18, 2021 at the Council
meeting. Customers have until Oct. 29, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. to pay the delinquent amount. The
amounts shown do not include interest, the $30 per account administrative fee, or the $75
penalty for utility accounts that are being certified for the second consecutive year. Of the 543
accounts certified last year, 296 received this additional penalty of $75 for being certified in
consecutive years. A copy of the assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk’s office for review.
Next steps: After conducting the public hearing, the city council will take action by passing a
resolution at the Nov. 15, 2021 council meeting to direct the assessment of delinquent water,
sewer, storm water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations
against the benefiting property
Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with
residents to resolve issues related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts
outstanding as of Oct. 29, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. will be certified to Hennepin County for collection
as part of the owner’s property tax bill. Upon certification, the delinquent amounts will become
a lien on the individual properties.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution levying assessment for delinquent
utility accounts, tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations
Whereas, the city council has heretofore determined by resolution or ordinance the
rates and charges for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided
for the abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations to a home or business
shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and
Whereas, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served
under Section 18-153, Section 18-154, Section 22-37, Section 32-34, Section 34-52, Section 34-
56, Section 32-97, Section 32-153, Section 34-111, and Section 34-112, of the St. Louis Park City
Code and Minnesota Statutes Sections 415.01, 366.011, 366.012, 429.061, 429.101, 443.015,
410.33, and 444.075; and
Whereas, Finance has prepared a list of unpaid charges to be certified against each tract
or parcel of land served by utilities, or against which tree removals, false alarms, mowing and
citations remain unpaid at the close of business on Oct. 29, 2021; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that said
assessment rolls are hereby adopted and approved, there is hereby levied and assessed against
each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively
therein, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment roll for amounts
unpaid at the close of business on Oct. 29, 2021, to the Auditor of Hennepin County for
collection of the assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and
payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of 2.5
percent per annum; and
It is further resolved that said unpaid charges are hereby certified to the Auditor of
Hennepin County, and the Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to deliver said list of
unpaid charges to the Auditor of Hennepin County, for collection in the same manner as other
municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Public hearing: 6b
Executive summary
Title: Public hearing for 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd. vacation ordinances
Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony on the vacation
ordinances, and then close the public hearing. The city council will be asked to take action on
these matters later in the meeting under agenda item 8b.
Policy consideration: Are the easements needed for public purposes?
Summary: These requests are associated with applications for a proposed redevelopment
project at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard. For more context about the project, as well as
the proposed ordinances, please refer to item 8b on tonight’s city council agenda.
Staff recommend amending Ordinance 2532-18 to delete a condition that is no longer needed.
The public utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated will remain in place and the proposed plat,
Bereks Addition, will dedicate drainage and utility easements over the public utilities.
ESG Architects, on behalf of SLP Park Ventures, also requests a vacation of a drainage and utility
easement. There are no city utilities in the drainage and utility easement. The remaining private
utility lines in the easement will be removed during construction. No new utilities will be
installed in this easement area as part of this project, so there will be no public purpose to
retaining the easement once the project is completed. City staff support the vacation request.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Easement vacation exhibits
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Project site Drainage and utility
easement to be vacated
Interstate 394 Ford Road
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Title: Public hearing for 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd. vacation ordinances
Easement vacation exhibits
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Title: Public hearing for 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd. vacation ordinances
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Recommended action: Update city code to reflect that utility fees and liquor license fees are
adopted by ordinance, rather than set by resolution.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to align with recommendations from the
League of Minnesota Cities and adopt utility fees and liquor license fees by ordinance?
Summary: Based on various Minnesota state statutes, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)
advises setting most fees by ordinance. To comply with this guidance, staff recommend city
council adopt utility rates and liquor license fees by ordinance, rather than by resolution. City
codes to be modified include 3-59 Retail license fees, 32-31 Water rates, 32-32 Service
connection fee, 32-98 Sewer rental rates, and 32-203 Water meters. This ordinance also
corrects language in city code 32-142 Rates and charges.
First reading of fee schedule will be held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Proposed ordinance
LMC fee schedule guidance
2021 Appendix A
Prepared by: Sharae Sledge, finance manager
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Discussion
Background: The City of St. Louis Park fee schedule includes major items such as permits,
license fees, and inspections. The current process to modify our fee schedule is to review all
fees annually, by department, and staff determines where changes are needed. We then
present these changes to council in the ordinance to be adopted for the following year. In prior
years, we have set our utility and liquor license fees by resolution. Fees approved by resolution
were not included on the schedule or fees being approved by ordinance. After reviewing
guidance provided by the League of Minnesota Cities and seeking legal counsel, it has been
decided that utility and liquor license fees should be adopted by ordinance.
Present considerations: We propose changing our ordinance to comply with best practices and
include the following fees in appendix A (see below). By moving from passage by resolution to
passage by ordinance, the process will change from not including liquor license fees and utility
fees in the fee ordinance, to now including them so they are published on the city’s website.
This change will add convenience and increase visibility for users when looking for fees charged
by the city. We will continue to list utility rates separately on the utility billing web page, but
they will now also be included on the fee schedule.
Fees to be added to the Appendix A fee schedule:
Bassett Creek Watershed Management
District
(property pass-through charge)
Residential monthly $0.77 per residential equivalent unit
Residential quarterly $2.31 per residential equivalent unit
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 2.31 * 5) = quarterly rate
Sanitary Sewer Base Charge
Residential and multi-family $20.79 per quarter
Commercial $6.94 per month
Sewer and Service Charges
Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate $4.06 per unit
Solid Waste Svc - Collection Cost per Quarter (Includes tax when applicable)
20 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week) $33.49
30 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week) $44.52
20 gallon service $46.48
30 gallon service $63.53
60 gallon service $90.43
90 gallon service $138.60
120 gallon service $220.19
150 gallon service $275.22
180 gallon service $330.26
270 gallon service $495.39
360 gallon service $660.55
Solid Waste Service (Residential)
Additional 30 gallon cart $63
Additional 60 gallon cart $63
Additional 90 gallon cart $63
Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12
month period
$20
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Solid Waste Service (Commercial) -
Collection Cost
30 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $16.58
Garbage (quarterly) $49.73
60 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $28.53
Garbage (quarterly) $85.60
Organics (monthly) $12.84
Organics (quarterly) $38.52
90 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $42.80
Garbage (quarterly) $128.41
Recycling (monthly) $14.95
Recycling (quarterly) $44.84
Organics (monthly) N/A
Organics (quarterly) N/A
120 gallon service
Organics (monthly) $24.65
Organics (quarterly) $73.95
180 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $88.37
Garbage (quarterly) $265.10
Recycling (monthly) $26.78
Recycling (quarterly) $80.33
Organics (monthly) $36.97
Organics (quarterly) $110.92
270 gallon service
Recycling (monthly) $36.97
Recycling (quarterly) $110.92
Storm Water Rate
Single family quarterly $27.85 per residential equivalent unit
Basic system rate monthly $46.43 per residential equivalent unit
Basic system rate quarterly $139.25 per residential equivalent unit
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 27.85 * 5) = quarterly rate
Water Meter Charges
Commercial Monthly Fee
5/8" meter $13.26
3/4" $13.26
1" $18.55
1.5" $23.85
2" $38.41
3" $145.75
4" $185.50
6" $278.23
Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee
5/8" meter $39.78
3/4" $39.78
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
1" $55.65
1.5" $71.54
2" $115.24
3" $437.24
4" $556.49
6" $834.69
2" compound $114.25
3" compound $433.47
Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or
750 gallons)
Residential
Tier 1 0 - 13.333 units (0 - 10,000 gallons) $2.16
Tier 2 13.333 - 20 units (10,000 - 15,000
gallons)
$2.62
Tier 3 > 20 units (>15,000 gallons) $3.15
Multi Family All units $2.62
Commercial
Tier 1 0 - 100 units (0 - 75,000 galllons) $2.39
Tier 2 100 - 300 units (75,000 - 225,000
galllons)
$2.63
Tier 3 > 300 units (>225,000 galllons) $2.92
Industrial
Tier 1 0 - 1,000 units (0 - 750,000 galllons) $2.39
Tier 2 1,000 - 3,000 units (750,000 -
2,225,000 galllons)
$2.63
Tier 3 > 3,000 units (>2,225,000 galllons) $2.92
Irrigation All units $4.29
Water Shut Off/Turn On
Normal business hours (6 a.m. - 3 p.m.) $55.00
After hours (After 3:00 p.m., Weekends) $165.00
Liquor Licenses
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S.
340A.480-3(c )
$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Culinary Class Limited $100
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Next steps: Modify city code to adopt utility and liquor license fees by ordinance rather than
set by resolution. Add liquor license fees and utility rates to appendix A items of fee schedule.
Staff will continue to evaluate all fees annually as part of the budget process. Fees will be
updated to remain comparable with other cities and to ensure that amounts charged
adequately cover costs associated with providing city services. Second reading of this ordinance
is scheduled for Nov. 1, 2021.
A public hearing with first reading of the full Appendix A fee schedule will be held on Nov. 1,
2021.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Ordinance No. ___-21
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
An Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Sections
relating to the setting of fees
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59(a) is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
Sec. 3-59. Retail license fees.
(a)Annual fees. The annual fee for all licenses shall be set by the city council, by
resolution ordinance, in amounts no greater than those set forth in M.S.A. Ch. 340A.
Section 2. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-31(a) is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
Sec. 32-31. Water rates.
(a)Rates. The rate due and payable to the city by each water user with the city for
billings on or after February 26, 2001, for water taken from the city water supply system shall
be set by city council resolution ordinance. All charges for single-family and multiple-family
dwelling users shall be determined and payable on a quarterly basis, and all charges for
commercial, industrial and institutional users shall be determined and payable on a monthly or
quarterly basis; provided, however, that there shall be a service charge to each water user for
each quarter year period during which water service is furnished as set by city council
resolution. In case the meter is found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner,
the amount of water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount previously used for
the comparable period of the last previous year.
Section 3. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-31(c) is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
Sec. 32-31. Water rates.
(c)Water bills. Water bills shall be mailed to customers for the service periods set
forth in subsection (a) of this section, and shall specify the water consumed and the charges in
accordance with rates set forth by city council resolution ordinance.
Section 4. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-32 is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Sec. 32-32. Service connection fee.
The state-mandated service connection fee listed in this section for testing water supplies
will be collected by the city and remitted to the state department of revenue. The service
connection fee due and payable to the city by each water user within the city for water taken
from the city water supply system shall be an amount set by city council resolution ordinance.
Section 5. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-98 is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
Sec. 32-98. Sewer rental rates.
Charges for sewer service to residential and nonresidential users within the city provided
in section 32-97 for billings on or after February 26, 2001, shall be: an amount per 100 cubic
feet of water consumption set by city council resolution, as measured during the winter
consumption (or otherwise determined in subsection (1) of this section), and a monthly service
charge of an amount set by city council resolution ordinance, or an amount quarterly per
dwelling or account set by city council resolution ordinance.
(1)All residential sewer customer charges shall be determined by computing the
winter water consumption as determined by the city billing cycle for each
district. Commercial sewer charges shall be determined by computing the water
consumption each month throughout the year. In any case where winter meter
readings are not available or appropriate, charges shall be made on the basis of
current water consumption.
(2)A penalty of ten percent shall be added to the amount due on any sewer bill if
not paid within three weeks after the billing date. Payments received within
three working days following the due date shall be deemed as paid within such
period.
(3)All owners, lessees and occupants of buildings discharging sewerage into the city
sewer while using water from any source other than the city municipal water
system shall install meters or other measuring devices meeting with the city
water meter specifications to measure either the water used or the discharge
into the sewer.
Section 6. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-142 is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
Sec. 32-142. Rates and charges.
Fees for the use and availability of the storm sewer system shall be determined through
the use of a residential equivalent factory (REF). A residential equivalent factory is the ratio of
the volume of runoff generated by one acre of a particular land use to the volume of runoff
generated by one acre of single-family and two-family residential land use based upon average
annual rainfall.
Section 7. St. Louis Park City Code Section 32-203(e) is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Sec. 32-203. Water meters.
(e) Whenever any meter shall become obstructed or out of order, the director of public
works shall cause it to be repaired. The director of public works shall direct the cost of such
repairs to be paid out of the funds of the water department unless the meter has been
damaged by freezing or willful neglect by someone outside of the city employ. On request of
any customer and payment to the city clerk of a fee set by city council resolution ordinance, the
director of public works will test such water meter. All water meters obtained from the city
shall remain the property of the city and may be replaced at any time by the director of public
works if found to be worn or defective beyond repair. Such replacement shall be paid for from
water department funds.
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect November 26, 2021.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 1, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading 10/18/2021
Second reading 11/1/2021
Date of publication 11/11/2021
Date ordinance takes effect 11/26/2021
League of Minnesota Cities Model Form 11/18/2020
Fees Set by Ordinance or Resolution Chart Page 1
Fees Set by Ordinance or Resolution Chart, LMC Model Form
Helpful background information on this model may be found in the Licensing Chapter of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities.
FEE SCHEDULES:
FIXING FEES VIA ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION
It is becoming increasingly popular for cities to make use of a fee schedule in setting and/or changing licensing and other regulatory
fees. The fee schedule is a list of each fee charged by the city that is usually found in an appendix of the city’s ordinance book. Fee
schedules are developed in lieu of listing individual dollar amounts in each separate licensing or regulatory section of the ordinance
book. By using a fee schedule, a city can revise all its fees at once in a single ordinance revision, rather than revising many separate
ordinance provisions. The schedule also generally makes it easier to handle publishing concerns.
While fee schedules can be convenient, they have the tendency to blur the distinctions between different types of licensing fees. Often
State statutes impose unique notice or hearing provisions regarding a change in licensing fees. In other instances, State statutes may
prescribe dollar limitations on certain fees. Cities must heed these requirements in changing their fees even when using a blanket fee
schedule.
Finally, most fees should be set via ordinance and changed via an ordinance amendment. Although fixing license fees by resolution is
more convenient and eliminates the necessity of publishing, fixing fees in such a manner is probably invalid. A rare exception to this
occurs only where the enabling State statute allows for the fee to be sent via resolution. Where State statute does not permit cities to
set the fee via resolution, such fees are probably void and likely unenforceable in a court of law.
The attached chart has been developed by the League Research Department to provide cities with a convenient method for
determining whether a fee should be set via ordinance or resolution, when a public hearing or individual notice is required and
whether the State imposes limits on the fee amount.
Type of Fee Establish by
ordinance?
Establish
by
resolution?
Fee set or
limited by
state law?
Hearing
required?
Notice
required?
Statute or
rule
reference
Liquor Licensing
On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License Yes No No Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 1.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees Page 9
League of Minnesota Cities Model Form 11/18/2020
Fees Set by Ordinance or Resolution Chart Page 2
Type of Fee Establish by
ordinance?
Establish
by
resolution?
Fee set or
limited by
state law?
Hearing
required?
Notice
required?
Statute or
rule
reference
Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License Yes No No Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 1
Club On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Yes No Yes Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 2(b).
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Yes No Yes, may only
be set to cover
costs and
enforcement.
Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 2.
Intoxicating Liquor Wine License Yes No Yes Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 2(c).
Off-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor
Yes No Yes Yes Yes 340A.408
Subd. 3.
Transient Commerce
Peddlers & Solicitors License Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 19.
Animals
Pet/Dog License Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 21.
Amusements &
Entertainments
Public Dance License Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 27.
Special Event or Entertainment
Permit
Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 25.
Bowling Alley License Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 25.
Billiard & Pool Hall License Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 25.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees Page 10
League of Minnesota Cities Model Form 11/18/2020
Fees Set by Ordinance or Resolution Chart Page 3
Type of Fee Establish by
ordinance?
Establish
by
resolution?
Fee set or
limited by
state law?
Hearing
required?
Notice
required?
Statute or
rule
reference
Game Room & Arcade License Yes No Yes,
amusement
machines
limited to
actual cost or
$15.
No No 412.221.
Subd. 25 &
449.15.
Tobacco
Cigarette & Tobacco Sales License Yes No Yes. May
only be set to
cover costs &
enforcement.
No fee for a
person who is
blind.
No Yes 461.12.
461.15.
Gambling
Gambling Permit for exempt
gambling (bingo, pull-tab,
paddlewheel, etc.)
Yes No Yes No No 349.213
Subd. 1.
Annual or initial gambling
Investigation Fees
Yes No Yes No No 349.16
Subd. 8.
Businesses
Tear Gas & Stun Gun Sales Yes No No No No 624.731.
Pawn Brokers License Yes No No No No 325J.02.
Small Vehicle Passenger Service
including vehicles used for
nonemergency medical care,
pedicabs, rickshaws, or other
similar vehicles
Yes No No No No 221.091.
412.221,
subd. 20.
Massage Parlor license Yes No No No No 412.221
Subd. 23.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees Page 11
League of Minnesota Cities Model Form 11/18/2020
Fees Set by Ordinance or Resolution Chart Page 4
Type of Fee Establish by
ordinance?
Establish
by
resolution?
Fee set or
limited by
state law?
Hearing
required?
Notice
required?
Statute or
rule
reference
Solid waste collection license Yes No No No No
.
115A.93,
subd. 1;
412.221,
subd. 22.
Utilities
Gas/Electricity User Rates Yes No Yes No No 453.57.
Water User Rates, Connection and
Availability Charges
Yes No Yes No No 444.075
Subd. 3a.
Sanitary Sewer Rates Yes No Yes No No 444.075
Subd. 3a.
Storm Sewer Rates Yes No Yes No No 444.075
Subd. 3b.
Zoning & Building
Zoning Fees Yes Yes, if
revenues
less than
$5,000.00
per year &
ordinance
sets a fee
schedule.
Yes, must be
reasonable &
proportionate
to services
rendered.
Yes Yes 462.353.
Building Permits & Inspections Yes No Yes, must be
reasonable &
proportionate.
No No Minn.
Building
Code
1300.0160
subp. 2 – 6.
Park Dedication Fees Yes No Yes No No 462.358.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees Page 12
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Administrative Penalties
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 – Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health
Regulations Adopted by Reference
$100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $100
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management
Chapter 22, Multifamily & Commercial
$50
$100
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling
Containers blocking public way
Chapter 24, Section 47 - Visual obstructions at
intersections
$50
$100
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or
injuring
$150
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves or snow into
street prohibited
Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way
without a permit
Chapter 24, Section 342 – Snow, ice and rubbish a public
nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner
Chapter 26 – Subdivision
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision
approval.
Chapter 32 – Utilities
Violation of sprinkling ban
t
Chapter 36 – Zoning
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not
permitted in the zoning district
$100
$100
$25 first time; fee shall double for each
subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of
$200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Does not
reset annually. Does reset for new owners.
$100
$750
$50
$50 first time; fee shall double for each
subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of
$200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Does not
reset annually. Does reset for new owners.
$50
$100
Page 13 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit
approval
$750
Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled up to a maximum
of $2,000
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous
violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a
$50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400
(first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated
with abatement and licensing inspections.
City Clerk’s Office
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25
Community Development Department
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,150
Conditional Use Permit $2,150
Major Amendment $2,120
Minor Amendment
Fill or Excavation only
$1,150
$570
Fence Permit
Installation $20
Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council, Hennepin
County, etc.)
$3,000 ($2,000 non-refundable)
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50
Official Map Amendment $600
Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
Driveway Permit $25
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $3,000
Final PUD $3,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $5,000
PUD - Major Amendment $2,150
PUD – Minor Amendment $1,150
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Page 14 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Registration of Land Use $50
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $100
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $100
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings
Super graphic (mural)
$150
$30
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,150
Minor Amendment $1,150
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $900
Subdivision Dedication
Park Dedication (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved
land as determined by city assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $1,000 plus $150 per lot
Final Plat $600
Combined Process and Replats $1,200 plus $150 per lot
Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $375
Temporary Use
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500
Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50
Time Extension $200
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq. ft. of gross floor
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $140 per caliper inch
Variances
Commercial $550
Residential $300
Zoning Appeal $300
Zoning Letter $50
Zoning Map Amendments $2,150
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 200 sq. ft. or less $25
Page 15 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Zoning Text Amendments $3,000
Engineering Department
Permit Parking – High School and Medical Need
Right of Way Permits
No charge
Base Fee
Installation/repair of sidewalk, curb cut or curb and
gutter permit
Excavation
$65
$130
Hole in Boulevard (larger than 10” diameter) $65 per hole
Hole in Road (larger than 10” diameter) $130 per hole
Trenching in Boulevard 0-100 ft = $200, over 100 ft = $200 + $1 per
sq. ft. over 100 ft
Trenching in Roadway 0-100 ft = $400, over 100 ft = $400 + $1 per
sq. ft. over 100 ft
Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee
Obstruction (road, lane, sidewalk, or bikeway closure) $100 per week
Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit
Permit Fee $1,500 per antenna
Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless support
structure
$150 per year, per antenna
Maintenance associated with space on a city-owned
wireless support structure
$25 per year, per antenna
Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not
purchased directly from a utility
(i)$73 per radio node less than or equal to
100 max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node
over 100 max watts
Actual costs of electricity if the actual costs
exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii).
Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee
Temporary No Parking Signs (for ROW permit work)
Temporary Private Use of Public Property
Deposit of $25/sign (minimum $100 per
permit)
$750
Dewatering Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits)
Discharge to Sanitary Sewer
$250
Charge based on duration/volume of discharge
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review – single family
Application and Review – all other applicants
$350
$750
Deposit – single family
Deposit – other applicants
$1,500
$3,000 per acre (min. $1,500)
Page 16 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Mobility Sharing
Device Impoundment
Impoundment fee $56 per mobility sharing device
Storage fee $18 per day if not retrieved on the
same day of impoundment.
License fee $100 per mobility sharing device
Fire Department
False Alarm Residential Commercial
1st Offense $0 $0
2nd Offense in same year $100 $100
3rd Offense in same year $150 $200
4th Offense in same year $200 $300
5th Offense in same year $200 $400
Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Tents and Membrane Permit
Tents/membrane structures over 400 sq. ft. $100
Building & Energy Department
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500
All Other Buildings $5,000
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $180
All Other Buildings $300
Building Moving Permit $500
Business Licenses
Billboards $170 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $290
Courtesy Bench $70
Dog Kennel $165
Environmental Emissions
Designated outdoor dog area
$340
$50
Massage Therapy
Massage Therapy Establishment $385
Massage Therapy License $125
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment Lic. $35
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Page 17 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Per Transaction Fee $2
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $610
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $245
Parking Ramp $195
Tanning Bed Facility $300
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after building
occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
up to 5,000 sq ft $500
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $800
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,200
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,600
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $2,000
above 200,000 sq ft $2,500
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy – Single Family $90
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy – All other
occupancies
$150
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $65
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $155
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $335
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $300 per building +$17 per unit
Single Family Dwellings $235
All Other Buildings:
up to 5,000 sq ft $500
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $800
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,200
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,600
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $2,000
above 200,000 sq ft $2,500
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance
SF Residential $95
All others $255
Page 18 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection,
mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
up to $500 Base Fee $65
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $65 + $2 for each additional
$100 over $500.01 (or fraction thereof)
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $95 + $15 for each additional
$1,000 over $2,000.01 (or fraction thereof)
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $440 + $10 for each additional
$1,000 over $25,000.01 (or fraction thereof)
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $690 + $7 for each additional
$1,000 over $50,000.01 (or fraction thereof)
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,040 + $6 for each additional
$1,000 over $100.000.01 (or fraction thereof)
$500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,440 + $5.50 for each additional
$1,000 over $500,000.01 (or fraction thereof)
$1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $6,190 + 5.00 for each additional
$1,000 over $1,000,000.01 (or fraction thereof)
Single Family Residential Exceptions:
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only
House or House and Garage $145
Garage Only $75
Residing
House or House and Garage $145
Garage Only $75
Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $250
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one appliance $65
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $75
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $75
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $65
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $65
Page 19 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $100
Water Access Charge $800 per SAC unit charged on new or
enlarged water services
Competency Exams Fees
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal - 1 year Mechanical $15
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $110
Solid Waste $215
Tree Maintenance $105
Dog Licenses
1 year $25
2 year $40
3 year $50
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250
Interim License $15
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55
Penalty for no license $40
Inspections
After hours inspections $250 plus $90 per hour after first hour
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building
permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has
not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections) $130
Insurance Requirements A minimum of:
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
License Fees – Other
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business
license
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership) $75
Page 20 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Plan Review – 50% of amount due at time of application.
Exception: Single Family Residential additions, accessory
structures and remodels.
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Rental Housing License
Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $100 per unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $185 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit
Multiple Family
Per Building $250
Per Unit $18
Single Family Unit $135 per unit
Temporary Noise Permit $70
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260
Commercial Film Production Application $100
Petting Zoos $60
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110
Vehicle Decals
Solid Waste $26
Tree Maintenance & Removal $10
Operations & Recreation Department
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $50 each
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
Police Department
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $40
2nd offense w/in year $60
3rd offense w/in year $85
4th offense w/in year $110
Boarding Per Day $30
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Page 21 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Appendix A – 2021 Fee Schedule
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm (Police) Residential Commercial
1st Offense $0 $0
2nd Offense in same year $100 $100
3rd Offense in same year $100 $125
4th Offense in same year $100 $150
5th Offense in same year $100 $175
Each subsequent in same year
Late payment fee
$100
10%
$25 increase
10%
Peddler Registration $150
Lost ID Replacement Fee $25
Solicitor Registration $0
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
Page 22 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 18, 2021
Action agenda item: 8b
Executive summary
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Recommended actions:
1.Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text
(five affirmative votes).
2.Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Bereks Addition
(four affirmative votes).
3.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-268-11 and set the
second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (four affirmative votes).
4.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance vacating drainage and utility easement
and set the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (five affirmative votes).
5.Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending right-of-way vacation ordinance
and set the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021 (five affirmative votes).
Policy consideration: Does the proposed redevelopment meet the city’s affordable housing and
neighborhood development goals?
Summary: ESG Architects, on behalf of Bigos Management, proposes a six-story, 233-unit
apartment development on property located at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard. Twenty
percent (20%) of the units will be affordable at 50% area median income (AMI).
The planning commission held a public hearing regarding the comprehensive plan and zoning
text amendments and preliminary and final plat on October 6, 2021, at which time no one
testified. The commission acknowledged and considered written comments and the summary
of comments received during a neighborhood meeting. The commission unanimously
recommended approval of the applications. The parks and recreation advisory commission
(PRAC) recommended collection of park and trail dedication fees on October 6, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: The development team has expressed that the proposed
project’s financial pro forma exhibits a substantial gap which makes the mixed income
development financially infeasible. To offset this gap, the development team has applied for tax
increment financing (TIF) assistance to enable the project to proceed. Staff will submit a report
outlining the TIF request to the EDA at a future meeting. Staff recommend collecting $349,500
in park dedication fees in-lieu of park land, and $52,425 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; PUD amendment ordinance; Easement vacation ordinance; Right-of-
way vacation amendment ordinance; Resident letters; Development plans
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Discussion
Background: The site includes three parcels improved with two billboards (three sign faces).
The previous use of the site was the Santorini restaurant, which was demolished in 2013.
In 2018 the city council approved applications for a plat and planned unit development (PUD) to
allow redevelopment of the site. In February 2020, council granted an extension for filing the
plat with the county that expired in February 2021.The approved PUD allows a 149-unit, six-
story apartment building and 100-key, six-story hotel on the site.
In January 2020, planning commission recommended approval of a comprehensive plan
amendment, preliminary and final plat, and PUD amendment for a new proposal for this site.
This second proposal was a 233-unit, seven-story multi-family development with one building.
The developer withdrew the land use applications before the project went to council, so the
originally approved PUD ordinance is still in effect. The approved plat was never recorded.
The previous city approvals included vacating right-of-way located 15 feet from the north curb
line of Wayzata Boulevard adjacent to the parcels at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard. The
city council also transferred ownership of the land from the City of St. Louis Park to the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority (EDA), with the intention that the EDA would sell the
land to the adjacent property owner for the redevelopment project. The previously approved
project would have had to relocate existing public water and sanitary utility lines; the current
proposal does not require these utility lines to be relocated. As part of these applications, staff
recommend amending Ordinance 2532-18 to remove the condition that requires utility line
relocation. Staff also recommend approving a petition to vacate unused drainage and utility
easement on the eastern portion of site.
Site map:
Project site
Interstate 394 Highway 169
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Site area: 3.11 acres
Current use: Surrounding land uses:
Vacant land North: parking ramp, office
East: right-of-way
South: right-of-way
West: mixed-use commercial and multi-
family residential
Current 2040 land use guidance Current & proposed zoning
OFC- office PUD planned unit development
ROW – right-of-way
Proposed 2040 land use guidance
RH - high density residential
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, adhere to the city’s inclusionary housing policy. The
required breakdown is 20 percent of units at 60 percent area median income (AMI), 10 percent
of units at 50 percent AMI, or five percent of units at 30 percent AMI. The developer can
choose what percentage of affordability they would like to provide.
The developer has also applied for city financial assistance through the utilization of a housing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. A housing TIF district requires at least 20 percent of the
units be available at 50 percent AMI per Minnesota state statute.
The proposed development will exceed the requirements of the city’s inclusionary housing
policy and will meet the requirements for a Housing TIF district with 20 percent of the units
available at 50 percent AMI. These units will be spread proportionally through the mix of unit
types.
Climate action plan. The project will adhere to the city’s green building policy. The proposed
plan includes a rooftop solar array. The development team is finalizing the size of the solar
array and the amount of power expected to be generated on-site.
Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city:
1.Amend the comprehensive plan 2040 land use map to change the future land use
designation from office and right-of-way to high density residential.
2.Approve a preliminary and final plat to combine the existing parcels into one lot.
3.Amend the PUD zoning ordinance to rewrite the use and dimensional requirements to
allow the proposed apartment building.
4.Approve a vacation of unused drainage and utility easement on the property.
5.Amend the ordinance vacating right-of-way to remove the condition requiring utility
relocation.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Zoning analysis:
Comprehensive plan amendment: The applicant requests a change to the future land use
designation of the development site from OFC – office and ROW – right-of-way to RH – high
density residential. Below is an excerpt from the comprehensive plan future land use map.
A request for amending the city’s land use plan 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.
This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for
residential development at a density of 75 units per acre, which is considered high density (RH)
in the comprehensive plan. The amendment may be evaluated independently of the
development proposal against the goals of the comprehensive plan for the subject properties. If
approved, the amendment would allow a high-density multiple family residence to be
constructed at this site. Therefore, the amendment is required for the development as
proposed to move forward.
Project site
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
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 in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposed 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.
•Strategy B: Create well-defined community gateways at appropriate points where major
streets cross the city’s municipal boundary, using location appropriate signage, public
art, public plazas, and architecturally significant buildings.
•Strategy I: Continue to reduce the level of obtrusive signage within the city by
promoting a balance between aesthetics, safety, and communication needs.
Livable communities goal 2: Promote building and site design that creates a connected, human
scale, multimodal, and safe environment for people who live and work here.
•Strategy A: Encourage quality design in new construction such as building orientation,
scale, massing, and pedestrian access.
•Strategy D: Require parking lots to be separated from sidewalks and roadway facilities
with appropriate landscaping, street walls or berms, and curbs.
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.
•Strategy B: Promote and support the development of medium and high-density
residential land uses near commercial centers and nodes.
Housing goal 1: The City of St. Louis Park will promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring
housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse lifecycle housing choices suitable for
households of all income levels including, but not limited to affordable, senior, multi-
generational, supportive and mixed income housing, disbursed throughout the city.
•Strategy A: Create a broad range of housing types to provide more diverse and creative
housing choices to meet the needs of current and future residents.
•Strategy E: Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to assist in meeting housing
goals.
Housing goal 3: 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.
•Strategy B: Promote high-quality architectural design in the construction of new multi-
family developments.
Housing goal 4: The city is committed to creating, preserving and improving the city’s rental
housing stock.
•Strategy B: Promote the inclusion of family-sized units (2 and 3 bedroom) in newly
constructed multi-family developments.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
•Strategy C: 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 grow and change.
Housing goal 6: The city is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and
moderate-income households.
•Strategy A: Ensure affordable housing is disbursed throughout the city and not
concentrated in any one area.
•Strategy C: Promote the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments, including
those located near the Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor and other transit nodes,
retail and employment centers and commercial mixed-use districts.
Housing goal 7: Preservation, Safety and Sustainability: The city is committed to ensuring all
housing is safe and well maintained.
•Strategy C: Encourage the use of green building practices, energy-efficient products, and
sustainable methods in both single-family and multi-family housing construction.
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 (Scope 1 emissions) or
emitted directly through the purchase of electricity or other energy sources (Scope 2
emissions).
•Strategy F: Protect solar access in new developments to enable potential developments
of solar energy systems.
•Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging residents and businesses to replace
existing vehicles with more fuel-efficient models, including electric vehicles (EVs), and by
expanding EV charging infrastructure.
Availability of infrastructure
•Water and sewer: City engineering and operations staff reviewed the proposed
development and find the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be
adequate to serve the proposed development.
•Traffic: Staff conducted a trip generation analysis of the proposed multi-family
development and found the current proposal generated fewer daily trips to and from
the site than the previously approved mixed-use project. No changes will be necessary
to the surrounding street network due to the proposed development, and staff
recommend no further traffic studies for the project at this time.
•Stormwater: City engineering staff find that the development complies with stormwater
requirements. The applicant will be required to obtain both city and Basset Creek
Watershed District permits prior to construction.
Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood
Redevelopment of the vacant lots will change the character of the area. The area around the
project contains high density residential, office, and parking structures to the north and west,
and right of way to the east and south. The 2040 comprehensive plan identifies the overall
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Shelard Park district as already containing high-density residential land uses, and the proposed
development is similar in scale and density to other sites in the area. The district contains a mix
of commercial, office and entertainment uses, and there is a retail complex to the north of the
area in the city of Plymouth. The presence of a variety of commercial uses complements the
proposed high-density residential development.
The 2040 comprehensive plan identifies Shelard Park as a priority redevelopment area and an
area for future housing growth. The project site has convenient access to Highway 169 and
Interstate 394. Approving the comprehensive plan 2040 land use map amendment will allow for
additional housing units, including 3-bedroom and affordable units, on a currently vacant site
and served by nearby commercial, office and entertainment uses.
Staff find the goals and policies of the 2040 comprehensive plan support guiding the site for RH
– high density residential land use.
Regional policy. Metropolitan Council review of this comprehensive plan amendment is
required. The Met Council must authorize the city to put the amendment into effect. Staff
expect that a change to allow a residential density of 75 units per acre would be viewed
favorably by Met Council.
Preliminary and final plat: The applicant seeks preliminary and final plat approval to combine
two privately owned lots and two city owned lots into one lot for the proposed redevelopment
of a 233-unit multi-family building.
Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Bereks Addition will have a lot area of 135,471 square feet or 3.11
acres. The proposed residential density for the site is 75 units per acre.
Right-of-way dedication: No right-of-way will be dedicated by the plat.
Easements: Drainage and utility easements are provided along all property lines as per the
requirements of the city’s subdivision ordinance. There are five-foot easements along interior
property lines; additional easement is provided in the southwest corner of the property over
existing utility lines; and all other easements abutting city right of way are ten feet in width.
Access: The site currently has two driveways off Wayzata Boulevard. As part of the project,
these access points will be removed and four new driveways will be installed along Wayzata
Boulevard. The westernmost driveway serves the underground parking level in the building.
Two driveways serve a drop-off and emergency vehicle loop on the east side of the property.
The easternmost drive serves the ground level of parking in the building.
Sidewalks: The city’s subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks along all streets. New sidewalk is
provided along the south side of the property next to Wayzata Boulevard and will connect to
existing sidewalk on the west side of the site.
Park and trail dedication: No new parks are designated for this area in the comprehensive plan;
therefore, cash-in-lieu of land is recommended by staff and the parks and recreation advisory
commission. The 2021 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication feet at $1,500 per
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
dwelling unit and the trail dedication feet at $225 per dwelling unit. At 233 units the fees total
$401,925.
Staff find the preliminary and final plat meets city requirements.
PUD amendment: The applicant requests a major PUD amendment to rewrite the use and
dimensional requirements to allow the proposed apartment building. Below is an excerpt from
the zoning map showing the boundaries of the existing PUD 11 zoning district. No changes are
proposed to the zoning map at this time.
Building and site design analysis: Staff find the project 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.
Project site
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
(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 criterion will be met.
(3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. The project will comply with the
green building policy. This criteria will be met.
(4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. A
solar array installation will be included as part of the development. This criteria will be met.
(5) A PUD shall comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The development will
include 20 percent of the units available at 50 percent area median income (AMI). This is
more than double the number of affordable units required by the city’s inclusionary housing
policy. This criteria will be met.
Zoning analysis: The following table provides the development metrics. The proposed
performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the
development requirements for this property if approved. Further details on some of the zoning
items are provided below.
Zoning compliance table
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use Set by PUD ordinance Residential Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres 3.11 acres Yes
Height Set by PUD ordinance 7 stories, 74.67 feet Yes
Building Materials Minimum 60% Class I materials
on all facades.
Project will meet city
requirements
Class 1 materials: brick,
stucco, glazing
Yes
Dwelling Units 20% of total units at 50% AMI 233 total units; 20% will be
affordable at 50% AMI
Yes
Density (units per acre) High Density Residential
Max allowed: 75 per acre
75 units per acre Yes
Floor Area Ratio None with PUD 2.19 Yes
Off-Street Parking 1 space per bedroom
Total required: 325
Total provided: 325 Yes
EV charging Stations 10% level 1 EVSE (26 stalls)
1 level 2 EVSE
Conduit for 10% future level 1
EVSE
Residents:
14 level 1 stations
12 level 2 stations
Conduit for 33 future level
2 EVSE
Guests: 1 level 2 station
Yes
Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit plus 1 per
10 automobile spaces.
Total required: 266
Total Provided: 280 Yes
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Open Area/
DORA
No specific percentage with
PUD
20% Yes
Landscaping Replacement diameter:
346 caliper inches
New required:
Trees: 233
Shrubs: 1,758
Replacement provided:
604.5 caliper inches
Provided:
Trees: 233
Shrubs: 1,847
Yes
Setbacks Set by PUD ordinance North: 14 feet
West: 43.5 feet
South: 36.5 feet
Yes
Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Yes
Sidewalks Required along all street frontages Yes
Refuse handling Full screening required Yes
Stormwater
Management
Meet state and city requirements Yes
Use: The project is a single-phase residential development with one multi-family building. It
includes a combination of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom units. Interior amenities include
several individual and group coworking spaces for residents, community and fitness rooms, a
pet spa and lounge, maker space, and community room on the top floor of the building.
Unit Type Number of Units Number of Bedrooms
Studio 51 51
One bedroom 97 97
Two bedroom 78 156
Three bedroom 7 21
Total 233 325
Inclusionary housing policy: The proposed development will exceed the requirements of the
city’s inclusionary housing policy and will meet the requirements for a Housing TIF district with
20 percent of the units available at 50 percent AMI. These units will be provided in proportion
to the overall mix of unit types and will be spread throughout the building.
Climate action plan: The development will comply with the city’s green building policy. In
addition, the development will include a solar array installation on the roof of the building. The
development team is currently finalizing the design of the solar array and the amount of solar
energy that will be generated on-site.
Architectural design: The building design is a modern aesthetic with a cool and natural-toned
color palette. Proposed class 1 building materials include brick, stucco, and glazing.
Vehicular parking: The zoning ordinance requires one off-street parking space for every
bedroom in multi-family uses. The applicant proposes 233 units with 325 bedrooms, so 325
vehicular parking spaces are required. Parking is provided in 14 stalls in two surface lots on the
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
east side of the property and two levels of structured parking inside the building for a total of
325 parking spaces. Staff find the project meets vehicular parking requirements.
Electric vehicle parking: The zoning ordinance requires multi-family uses with 50 or more
parking spaces to provide level 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging for 10% of the required parking
spaces; at least one level 2 charging station; and conduit for an additional 10% of required
parking spaces for future level 2 EV charging stations. The proposed plans provide 14 level 1
and 12 level 2 charging stations for residents, one level 2 charging station for guests, and
conduit serving an additional 33 parking spaces. Staff find the project meets EV parking
requirements.
Bicycle parking: The zoning ordinance requires one bicycle parking space per bedroom plus one
bicycle parking space for every 10 vehicular parking spaces, so the project must have a
minimum of 266 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed plans provide 280 bicycle parking spaces
in wall-mounted racks in the two structured parking levels, a dedicated bike storage room in
the underground parking level, and exterior bike racks near the main pedestrian entrance to
the building. Staff find the project meets bicycle parking requirements.
Landscaping: The zoning ordinance requires 233 trees and 1,258 shrubs on the site. The plans
propose 233 trees and 1,847 shrubs. The plans also provide tree plantings that exceed the
minimum caliper inch size required in the ordinance and native, low-irrigation, and low-
maintenance plantings throughout the site. In addition, the applicant is considering the
following green landscaping features:
•Green roofs on the first-story portion of the building.
•A raingarden on the south side of the property.
Designed outdoor recreation area (DORA): There is no minimum DORA requirement for planned
unit developments, but generally the city requires 12% of the lot area to be DORA. The
proposed plans have 20% of the site area designated as DORA and includes a rooftop deck,
large ground floor amenity deck with a pool and spa, dog run, pickleball court, and private
landscaped walkway with seating areas.
Signs: A sign plan was not submitted for review. The site will be required to adhere to the sign
requirements for the R-C High Density Multiple Family Residence Zoning District. However,
pylon signs will be prohibited.
Utilities: All utility services to the building will be placed underground. Utility service structures,
such as a generator or transformer, will be screened completely from off-site with materials
consistent with the main building facade. Per the development agreement, buildings will
provide the necessary infrastructure to take advantage of fiber-optic service lines in the vicinity
of the development.
Public process: The applicant held a virtual neighborhood meeting on September 9, 2021.
Three residents attended as well as the ward councilmember. The applicant gave an overview
of the project and answered questions regarding parking and the design of the building units.
One resident was supportive of the project and redevelopment on the vacant lots; one resident
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
was concerned the new building would block views from their unit in the condo building just
west of the project.
Planning commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2021. No one spoke at the hearing. At
that time the commission recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment,
preliminary and final plat and PUD amendment.
On October 6, 2021 the parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) recommended the
city collect park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication.
All properties within 500 feet of the proposed development were notified by mail of the
neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. A legal notice was published in the official
newspaper regarding the public hearing. Project and meeting information was shared through
city social media accounts and the city website. A “proposed development” sign with contact
information was posted on the property. Staff have received one letter of support for the
project and one letter in opposition to the project. Please see the attached letters at the end of
this report.
Recommendations:
Staff recommend approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the
land use designation of the future land use map from OFC - office and ROW – right of way to RH
–high density residential.
Staff recommend approval of the Bereks Addition Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the
conditions listed in the resolution of approval.
Staff recommend approval of the ordinance amending the conditions of the right-of-way
vacation ordinance previously approved by city council on March 19, 2018.
Staff recommend approval of the ordinance vacating drainage and utility easement.
Staff recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 11 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.
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:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
a.A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility, and City representatives.
b.All necessary permits shall be obtained.
5.Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a.A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and
City that addresses, at a minimum:
i.The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate.
ii.The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to:
sidewalks, boulevards, and the execution of necessary easements related
to such improvements.
iii.Easements related to electronic communication and fiber infrastructure.
iv.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
boulevards), and the private site stormwater management system and
landscaping.
v.An encroachment agreement for any private improvements in the city
utility easement.
vi.The developer shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing
such documents as required in the final PUD approval.
vii.The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute said Planning
Development Contract.
b.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.
c.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.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
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.All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. Rooftop equipment may be located as
indicated in the Official Exhibits so as not to be visible from off-site.
9.The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building
design and architecture.
10.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, staff will submit a report on the project’s TIF request to the EDA at a
future meeting. City council will hold second readings of the PUD amendment and vacation
ordinances on November 1, 2021. 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 October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Resolution No. 21-____
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 9808 and 9920 Wayzata
Boulevard
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 October 6, 2021; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission; and
Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 21-33-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 land legally described in “Exhibit C”
attached hereto, including property at 9808 Wayzata Boulevard (PID:
01-117-22-14-0002) and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard (PID: 01-117-22-14-0018) from OFC –
Office to RH – High Density Residential and from ROW – Right of Way to RH – High Density
Residential.
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
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
based on the change in land use; changes within the document are found on the following
pages: 5-126 and 5-129.
Be it further resolved, city staff are instructed to submit the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review and authorization to place the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment into effect.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Exhibit A: Page 5-126, Figure 5-5. 2040 Future Land Use Plan
Project site
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Exhibit B: Page 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 397.44 381.18 5.52%
RH – High Density
Residential
220.19
223.30
211.55
214.66
3.06%
3.11%
MX - Mixed Use 52.81 52.81 0.76%
TOD - Transit Oriented
Development 81.76 81.76 1.18%
COM - Commercial 254.77 254.44 3.68%
OFC - Office 232.31
229.63
215.16
212.48
3.11%
3.08%
BP - Business Park 103.81 103.65 1.50%
IND - Industrial 237.82 199.64 2.89%
CIV - Civic 213.85 208.26 3.01%
PRK - Park and Open
Space 916.67 557.54 8.07%
ROW - Right of Way 1,516.78
1,516.35
1,508.42
1507.99
21.83%
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 October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Exhibit C: legal description
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22 described as beginning at point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7 Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41
minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes
16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance of
317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7; thence South 2
degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4
and the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes
24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds
West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59
seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundary lines of above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19207. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of
Title No. 1472181.
ALSO:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22 described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41
minutes 54 seconds West along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming
said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of
315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a distance
of 144.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet;
thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the
intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of
beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the
point of beginning.
The boundary lines of the above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17713. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of
Title No. 1472182.
ALSO:
Par 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117,
Range 22, and that part of Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way
Plat No. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said Parcel 44
and the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; westerly of the southerly extension
of the West line of Lot 4, Block 7, Shelard Park; southerly and easterly of the following
described line:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25
feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as
measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54
seconds East (assuming the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a
bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most southerly line of Lot 1
and its easterly extension 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the west line of Lot 4, said
Block 7; thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said northerly extension of
the west line of Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 4 a distance of 119.74 feet to the point of
beginning of the line being described; thence South 64 degrees 01 minute 24 seconds West a
distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West 139.87 feet to
the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the
point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly
line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1.
Line 1 is described as follows:
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as
shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to
Order Doc. No. T2062170 in Torrens Case No. 19207.
ALSO:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22, and that part of Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat
No. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said Parcel 44 and
the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; easterly of the West line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1; southerly and westerly of the
following described line:
Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25
feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as
measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54
seconds West along said most southerly line of Lot 1 to said west line (assuming said west line
has a bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet;
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
thence South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said west line 144.56 feet to a point
2.37 feet north of Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, and the
point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds
East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East 104.50 feet
to the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the
point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly
line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1.
Line 1 is described as follows:
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as
shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to
Order Doc. No. T2062169 in Torrens Case No. 17713. Being Registered land as is evidenced by
Certificate of Title No. 1472183.
ALSO
That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 described as follows:
Beginning at right of way Boundary corner B3; thence on an assumed azimuth of 1 degree 05
minutes 15 seconds along the boundary line of said plat a distance of 86.85 feet to Right of Way
Boundary Corner B4; thence deflect to the right 83.74 feet along a non-tangential curve
concave to the northwest and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B5, having a
radius of 2083.24 feet, central angle of 2 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds, chord azimuth of 48
degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds and chord distance of 83.73 feet; thence on an azimuth of 91
degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds a distance of 98.89 feet; thence southwesterly deflecting to the
right on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 788.53 feet, delta
angle of 15 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 229 degrees 07 minutes 59
seconds and chord distance of 215.62 feet to the East line of Parcel 44 as shown on said plat 27-
23; thence north along said East line of Parcel 44 to the point of beginning.
AND
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 22
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 which lies southwesterly and southerly of
Line 1, said Line 1 being described as follows:
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
Northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the West line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence Easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2
as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the Easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
And northerly of the following described line and its easterly extension:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, with the most southerly line of Lot 1,
Block 7, SHELARD PARK; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 39 minutes 11
seconds West along said West line a distance of 187.99 feet to the point of beginning of the line
being described; thence along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius
of 788.53 feet, central angle of 7 degrees 43 minutes 57 seconds, chord bearing of South 78
degrees 42 minutes 56 seconds East to its intersection with the most westerly extension of the
southerly line of said Parcel 44; thence easterly along said extension of the most southerly line
of said Parcel 44 to its intersection with Line 1 described above, and said line there ending.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 23
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Bereks Addition
9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard
Whereas, ESG Architects on behalf of Bigos Management, subdivider of land proposed to
be platted as Bereks Addition, has submitted an application for 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.
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 October 6, 2021, and the
commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat with conditions.
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.
Now therefore be it resolved the preliminary and final plat of Bereks Addition are 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
the planned unit development ordinance, approved Official Exhibits and City Code.
3.This approval is subject to city approval of the vacation of the easterly and southerly
right-of-way parcels, and the developer successfully acquiring said vacated right-of-way
parcels from the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
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 façade materials.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 24
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
5.The on-site underground storm water management systems shall be privately owned
and privately maintained. Access to the system shall be provided to the city for clean-
out and inspection purposes when warranted.
6.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.The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $349,500 and the
trail dedication fee of $52,425.
c.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, boulevard landscaping and the execution of necessary
easements related to such improvements.
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 boulevard landscaping), placement of iron
monuments at property corners, and site landscaping and design outdoor
recreation area amenities.
iii.An encroachment agreement for any private improvements in the public
drainage and utility easements.
iv.The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees incurred drafting,
reviewing and administering such documents as required in the final plat
approval.
v.The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the planning
development contract.
7.Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met:
a.Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
b.A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility, and city representatives.
c.All necessary permits shall be obtained.
d.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
(sidewalks, boulevard landscaping, etc.) and site landscaping and designed
outdoor recreation area amenities.
It is further resolved the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named 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 October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 25
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
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 October 18, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 26
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Exhibit A: legal description
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22 described as beginning at point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7 Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41
minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes
16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance of
317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7; thence South 2
degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4
and the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes
24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds
West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59
seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundary lines of above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19207.
AND:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22 described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park
distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41
minutes 54 seconds West along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming
said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of
315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a distance
of 144.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet;
thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the
intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of
beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the
point of beginning.
The boundary lines of the above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17713.
AND:
Par 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117,
Range 22, and that part of Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way
Plat No. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said Parcel 44
and the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; westerly of the southerly extension
of the West line of Lot 4, Block 7, Shelard Park; southerly and easterly of the following
described line:
Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25
feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 27
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54
seconds East (assuming the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a
bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most southerly line of Lot 1
and its easterly extension 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the west line of Lot 4, said
Block 7; thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said northerly extension of
the west line of Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 4 a distance of 119.74 feet to the point of
beginning of the line being described; thence South 64 degrees 01 minute 24 seconds West a
distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West 139.87 feet to
the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the
point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly
line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1.
Line 1 is described as follows:
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as
shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to
Order Doc. No. T2062170 in Torrens Case No. 19207.
ALSO:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range
22, and that part of Parcel 44 on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF
WAY PLAT NO. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said
Parcel 44 and the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; easterly of the West line
of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1; southerly and westerly of the
following described line:
Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25
feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as
measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54
seconds West along said most southerly line of Lot 1 to said west line (assuming said west line
has a bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet;
thence South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said west line 144.56 feet to a point
2.37 feet north of Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, and the
point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 28
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East 104.50 feet
to the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the
point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly
line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1.
Line 1 is described as follows:
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as
shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to
Order Doc. No. T2062169 in Torrens Case No. 17713.
ALSO
That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 described as follows:
Beginning at right of way Boundary corner B3; thence on an assumed azimuth of 1 degree 05
minutes 15 seconds along the boundary line of said plat a distance of 86.85 feet to Right of Way
Boundary Corner B4; thence deflect to the right 83.74 feet along a non-tangential curve
concave to the northwest and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B5, having a
radius of 2083.24 feet, central angle of 2 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds, chord azimuth of 48
degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds and chord distance of 83.73 feet; thence on an azimuth of 91
degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds a distance of 98.89 feet; thence southwesterly deflecting to the
right on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 788.53 feet, delta
angle of 15 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 229 degrees 07 minutes 59
seconds and chord distance of 215.62 feet to the East line of Parcel 44 as shown on said plat 27-
23; thence north along said East line of Parcel 44 to the point of beginning.
AND
That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 which lies southwesterly and southerly of
Line 1, said Line 1 being described as follows:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 29
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence
Northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the West line of the
boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner
B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence Easterly on an azimuth of
101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of
214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101
degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-
tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2
as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18
minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the Easterly
line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to
Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating.
And northerly of the following described line and its easterly extension:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, with the most southerly line of Lot 1,
Block 7, SHELARD PARK; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 39 minutes 11
seconds West along said West line a distance of 187.99 feet to the point of beginning of the line
being described; thence along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius
of 788.53 feet, central angle of 7 degrees 43 minutes 57 seconds, chord bearing of South 78
degrees 42 minutes 56 seconds East to its intersection with the most westerly extension of the
southerly line of said Parcel 44; thence easterly along said extension of the most southerly line
of said Parcel 44 to its intersection with Line 1 described above, and said line there ending.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 30
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Ordinance No. ___-21
Ordinance amending Section 36-268-PUD 11
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. 21-35-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 11.
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268-PUD 11 is hereby amended
by deleting strikethrough text and adding underlined text.
Section 36-268-PUD 11.
(a) Development plan.
The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
1. Platia Place Sheet 1
2. Platia Place Sheet 2
3. Platia Place Sheet 3
4. CJ001 Civil Title Sheet
5. CD100 Existing Conditions, Tree Inventory & Demolition Plan
6. CS100 Overall Site Plan – DORA Exhibit
7.CS101 Site Plan – Lot 1 (Multi-Family)
8. CS102 Site Plan – Lot 2 (Hotel)
9. CS501 Site Details
10. CS502 Site Details
11. CS503 Site Details
12. CG101 Grading Plan – Lot 1 (Multi-Family)
13. CG102 Grading Plan – Lot 2 (Hotel)
14. CG110 Erosion Control Plan
15. CG111 SWPPP
16. CG501 Erosion Control Details
17. CU101 Utility Plan – Lot 1 (Multi-Family)
18. CU102 Utility Plan – Lot 2 (Hotel)
19. CU111 Storm Sewer Plan Lot 1 (Multi-Family)
20. CU100 Storm Sewer Plan Lot 2 (Hotel)
21. CU501 Utility Details
22. CU502 Utility Details
23. CU503 Utility Details (Stormtech)
24. CK101 Site Lighting Plan
25. A0.2 Reference Views
26. A0.3 Hotel Elevations
27. A0.4 Hotel Plans
28. A0.5 Multi-Family Housing - Elevations
29. A0.6 Multi-Family Housing - Plans
30. A0.7 Multi-Family Housing - Plans
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 31
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
31. A6.0 Site Details
32. A6.7 Cement Plaster Details
33. Landscape Plan
1.A1-0 Parking Level – P1
2.A1-1 Levels 1-2
3.A1-2 Levels 3-6
4.A3-0 Elevations
5.AP1-1 Area Plan – P1 and Level 1
6.AP1-2 Area Plan – Levels 2 & 3-5
7.AP1-6 Area Plan – Level 6
8.AS0.00 Alta Survey
9.C0.00 Cover Sheet
10.C0.01 Removals Plan
11.C0.02 Fire Plan
12.C0.03 Site Plan
13.C0.04 Site Details
14.C0.05 Site Details
15.C0.06 Site Details
16.C0.07 Grading Plan
17.C0.08 Erosion Control Plan
18.C0.09 SWPPP
19.C0.10 Erosion Details
20. C0.11 Utility Plan
21.C0.12 Utility Service Profiles
22.C0.13 Utility Details
23.C0.14 Utility Details
24.C0.15 Utility Details
25.E0.2 Photometric Site Plan
26.E0.3 Photometric Plan Fixture Cut Sheet
27.E0.4 Photometric Plan Fixture Cut Sheet
28.L0.01 Landscape Notes and Schedules
29.L0.02 Landscape Plan
30.L0.02A Landscape Plan – Color
31.L0.03 Landscape Details
32.L0.04 DORA Plan
33.PL0.01 Preliminary Plat Sheet 1
34.PL0.02 Preliminary Plat Sheet 2
35.PL0.03 Final Plat Sheet 1
36.PL0.04 Final Plat Sheet 2
37.PL0.05 Final Plat Sheet 3
38. T1-0 Title Sheet
39. T2-1 Project Imagery
40. T2-2 Project Imagery
41. T2-3 Project Imagery
42.Shadow Studies
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 32
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
(1) The property shall be developed with 233 149 residential units and 63,740 square
feet of hotel space.
(2)At least 325 327 off-street parking spaces shall be provided.
(3) The maximum building height shall not exceed 73 71 feet and six stories.
(4) The development site shall include a minimum of 2025% designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(b) Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted uses on Lot 1:
(1) Multiple-family dwellings, and uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings,
including, but not limited to, the residential management office, fitness facility, mail
room, assembly rooms and general amenity space.
The following uses are permitted uses on Lot 2:
(2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses are limited to the following:
a. Hotel
(c) Prohibited uses.
(1)Extended-stay hotels.
(2) Restaurants.
(cd) Accessory uses.
Accessory uses are as follows:
(1) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter.
(2) Gardens.
(3) Parking lots.
a. All parking requirements must be met for each use.
b. A minimum of 20 parking spaces shall be designated and signed visitor parking on
Lot 1.
(4) Public transit stops/shelters.
(5) Outdoor seating, excluding public address (PA) systems.
(6) Outdoor uses and outdoor storage are prohibited.
(de) 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. Trash enclosures shall be
constructed from the same materials as the principal building.
(3) Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the following requirements found in the
following districts:
a. The apartment building signs shall be consistent with the sign regulations for the
R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residential zoning district.
b. The hotel building signage shall be consistent with the O - Office zoning district.
c.Exemptions located in the zoning ordinance for wall signage shall not apply.
cb. Pylon signs shall be prohibited.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 33
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council authorization of the
associated comprehensive plan amendment approved by City Council resolution _____ and not
sooner than 15 days after publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 1 2021
Jake Spano, mayor Kim Keller, city manager
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading October 18, 2021
Second reading November 1, 2021
Date of publication November 11, 2021
Date ordinance takes
effect
Upon Metropolitan Council Authorization of the associated
comprehensive plan amendment and no sooner than 15 days
after publication.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 34
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Ordinance No. ___-21
An ordinance vacating a drainage and utility easement
9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. ESG Architects, on behalf of SLP Park Ventures LLC, initiated the petition to
vacate the drainage and utility easements. The notice of said petition has been published in the
St. Louis Park Sailor on October 7, 2021 and mailed to abutting property owners, and the city
council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the
easements are not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public
that said easements be vacated.
Section 2. The following described easement is as now dedicated and laid out within the
corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park and shown in Exhibits A and B, are vacated:
The communication system easement as Document No. 4510515 on, under and across
that part of Lot 4, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follow:
A strip of land 10.00 feet in width, the Northwesterly line of which is contiguous to the
Northwesterly line of Lot 4, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, according to said plat on file and of
record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Also a strip of land 30.00 feet in width, the West line of which is contiguous with the West
line of said Lot 4.
AND
The underground easement filed as Document No. 3844615 under and across the
following described property:
The West 10 feet of the below described property; Lot 4, Block 7, Shelard Park, according
to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said
Hennepin County.
Section 3. The city clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the
Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles as the case may be.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon recording the final plat, and not sooner
than fifteen days after its publication.
First reading October 18, 2021
Second reading November 1, 2021
Date of publication November 11, 2021
Date ordinance takes effect November 26, 2021
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 35
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 1,
2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 36
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Exhibit A: communication system easement exhibit
Exhibit B: underground easement exhibit
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 37
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 38
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Ordinance No. ___-21
Ordinance amending conditions of approval for vacating right-of-way
9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the City Council approved Ordinance 2532-18 vacating right-of-way on March
19, 2018 as part of land use applications for redevelopment of property located at 9808 and
9920 Wayzata Boulevard; and
Whereas, land use applications, including a preliminary and final plat for Bereks Additions,
for a revised redevelopment proposal of the properties above have been submitted to the city
by ESG Architects on behalf of SLP Park Ventures. Certain public utility mains that would have
been relocated from the vacated right-of-way based on previous plans will now remain in place
according to the revised plans; and
Whereas, Ordinance 2532-18 has not been recorded and has not yet taken effect because
conditions of approval have not yet been satisfied; and
Whereas, one of the conditions of approval to relocate public utilities mains from the
right-of-way to be vacated is no longer applicable.
Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park proposes to amend the ordinance vacating right-of-
way and the application has been duly filed. The notice of the application was published in the
St. Louis Park Sailor on October 7, 2021 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing
upon said petition and has determined that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes,
and that it is for the best interest of the public that said right-of-way be vacated.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City
Code:
Section 1. Section 4 of Ordinance 2532-18 is hereby amended by deleting strikethrough
text and adding the following underlined text: This ordinance shall take effect upon relocation
of the public utilities and recording the final plat, Bereks Addition, and not sooner than fifteen
days after its publication.
Section 2. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the
Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First reading October 18, 2021
Second reading November 1, 2021
Date of publication November 11, 2021
Date ordinance takes effect November 26, 2021
City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 39
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 1, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
From:J M K
To:Jacquelyn Kramer
Subject:9920 Wayzata Blvd Proposed Project
Date:Friday, September 3, 2021 2:03:26 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 Jacquelyn:
I own one of the condominium units at the Westmarke, located at 1155 Ford Rd which is next
to the ugly lot located along the north frontage road at 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
My understanding is a new project is being considered which replaces the other few that were
proposed before.
For the record, I was in favor of constructing Platia Place but that project never transpired due
to (in my opinion) too many demands made by the Planning Committee.
So based on the difficulties in dealing with the St Louis Park Planning Committee, I Just want
to declare that I'm in favor of any development that replaces the empty, ugly lot where
Santorini's Restaurant used to be, so long as it compliments our luxury condo building and
other commercial properties along Ford Rd and Wayzata Blvd.
I would further like to point out that there are many large trees along the property line. Some
are directly in front of the billboard and others are north of the billboard along the same line. I
would NOT want those trees removed.
Thank you. I look forward to finally having a nice building next to our luxury condo, rather
than a filthy, ugly unmaintained large piece of dirt.
Sincerely,
Jerry M Kern
Condo Owner at 1155 Ford Rd
Page 40City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
From:Sheree Johnson
To:Jacquelyn Kramer
Subject:Planned unit development at 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd
Date:Monday, October 4, 2021 1:28:04 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.
From Harry L & Sheree M. Johnson
Sent from my iPad we live at 1155 Ford Rd unit #501 SLP , Mn 55426 & we are opposed to the proposal of the
designation from office to a 6 story high density residential development. Most owners of Westmarke
condominiums would see a substantial DECREASE in property values. Those OWNERS residing in the east facing
condos (like us) would loose their views of the landscape & skyline because of this proposal. We are the only
building impacted by this large development right outside our windows. The loss of our views only benefits the
RENTERS who will reap the beautiful views. It will a sad day for us if this is
approved. Sincerely, Harry & Sheree Johnson
Page 41 City council meeting of October 18, 2021 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.