Drive-Through Queuing Data Form - City of Wayzata

ITEM DESCRIPTION PRESENTER AM JA KW MB TT VOTE PAGE # 

1 Roll Call 

2 Approve Agenda 

3 Public Forum - 15 Minutes (3 min/person) 

a. Presentation about Camp Tanadoona 

4 Consent Agenda 2 

a. Minutes of July 17, 2012 

b. Check register 

c. Municipal Licenses (Staff Recommends Approval) 

d. Municipal Licenses Which Received Administrative Approval (Informational Only) 

5 New Business 

a. Consider Approval of Post-Issance Tax Compliance Procedures for Tax-Exempt Bonds 

Nelson / 

Vanda 

19 

b. Consider Resolution Related to Reimbursement of Sanitary Sewer Project Costs 

Nelson / 

Vanda 

34 

c. Consider Ordinance and Resolution Related to Issuance of Bonds 

Nelson / 

Vanda 

36 

d. Consider Proposal for Sewer Rate Study Dudinsky 40 

e. Consider Approval for Upgrade of Lift Station #8 Dudinsky 42 

f. Consider Approval of Res. 35-2012 TCF Bank Drive Thru CUP Gadow 43 

g. Consider Approval of St. Paul Riverfront Corporation Contract for Professional Services Nelson 162 

6 City Manager's Report and Discussion Items 

7 Public Forum (as necessary) 

8 Adjournment 

5:00 PM - WAYZATA CITY COUNCIL DINNER 

5:30 PM - 7:00 PM WORKSHOPS: 

REVIEW STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORT; DISCUSS CELL TOWER SITE; 

DISCUSS CALL FOR SALE OF BONDS 

Meeting Rules of Conduct: 

Turn in white card for public forum and blue card for agenda item 

Give name and address 

Indicate if representing a group 

Limit remarks to 3 minutes 

Upcoming Meetings: 

City Council - August 21 & September 4 

Planning Commission - August 20 & Wednesday, September 5 

WAYZATA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 

Wayzata City Hall Community Room, 600 Rice Street 

Thursday, August 9, 2012 

7:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 

Marnie 

Wells 

Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at the Wayzata Bar and Grill 

immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CC_08092012 

Page 1 of 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

WAYZATA CITY COUNCIL 

MEETING MINUTES 

July 17, 2012 

AGENDA ITEM 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 

Mayor Willcox called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Council Members present: Amdal, Bader, 

Mullin (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) and Tanner. Also present: City Manager Nelson, City Planner 

Gadow, Public Works Director Dudinsky, Police Chief Risvold, Director of Liquor Operations 

Holman, and City Attorney Meller. 

AGENDA ITEM 2. Approve Agenda 

The agenda was approved as presented. 

AGENDA ITEM 3. Public Forum – 15 Minutes (3 minutes per person). 

Casey Rosen, 1607 Crosby Road, a 50-year resident, recounted his years in Wayzata and 

commented on the importance of consensus building, bringing forward good ideas, and the 

benefit of TIF projects. He bid farewell and thanked all for the great opportunities afforded him 

over the years. 

Mr. Mullin arrived at 7:08 p.m. 

Mr. Willcox noted Mr. Rosen has recently sold his home and will be moving to Maple 

Grove. He thanked Mr. Rosen for his years of contribution to Wayzata 

a. Recognition of Years of Service to the City of Wayzata – Lisa Lutz 

Ms. Holman and Mr. Willcox presented Lisa Lutz with a plaque recognizing her 18 years of 

service to the City of Wayzata at the Muni. Ms. Lutz thanked the City for her job, one she loved, 

and stated it felt like working with family. 

b. Presentation of Volunteer of the Year Award 

Lynn McCarthy, Volunteer Coordinator, and Mr. Willcox presented the 2012 Volunteer of the 

Year award to John Berryhill in recognition of his many contributions to Wayzata. Mr. Berryhill 

thanked the City and Council for this recognition and stated he enjoys his current work at the Big 

Woods. 

c. School Resource Officer Update 

Susan Sommerfeld, Wayzata Public Schools Principal, described the School Resource Officer 

Program and commended Officer Dan Lee for his outstanding and dedicated service at Wayzata 

West Middle School. Ms. Sommerfeld presented a trophy of recognition to Officer Lee. 

Police Chief Risvold presented Officer Lee with the Wayzata Police Department 

Supervisory Commendation. Mr. Willcox extended this appreciation to Officer Lee for his work 

with the school and being an effective ambassador for the City. School Resource Officer Lee 

stated he appreciates this recognition and the opportunity to work at a wonderful school with 

great staff and students. 

d. Comment on Cellular Equipment at Klapprich Park 

Lucy Bruntjen, 402 Gardner Street E., commented on the negative impact to long-term 

residents as a result of the cellular equipment located on the water tower and asked the City to not 

forget this neighborhood. 

AGENDA ITEM 4. Consent Agenda. 

Ms. Bader stated she will inform staff of several typographical errors in the meeting minutes. 

Ms. Nelson explained the consent agenda includes police activity report and building activity 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

CC071712-2 

report as a means of providing additional information to the public. She reported there has been 

an uptick in building permit activity over projections. 

Mr. Tanner made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bader, to approve the consent agenda: 

a. Minutes of July 3, 2012 

b. Check Register 

c. Resolution No. 33-2012 appointing election judges for 2012 elections 

d. Municipal licenses which received administrative approval (informational only) 

e. Police activity report 

f. Building activity report 

The motion carried 5/0. 

AGENDA ITEM 5. New Business. 

a. Consider and Adopt Resolution No. 12-2012 Wayzata Yacht Club & Wayzata 

Community Sailing School Master Plan 

Mr. Gadow presented the powerboat policy, noting it has been updated per Council’s discussion 

with the Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) at its July 10, 2012, workshop. He indicated this policy is 

contained in Attachment B and will be codified with Resolution No. 12-2012. 

Jonathan McDonagh, WYC Commodore, thanked the Mayor, Council, and staff for their 

efforts to reach an agreement relative to powerboats. 

Mr. Mullin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Amdal, to Adopt Resolution No. 12-2012, 

approving an application by the Wayzata Yacht Club and Wayzata Community Sailing Center for 

a new planned unit development and related approvals at 456 Arlington Circle, 1000 Eastman 

Lane, 1100 Eastman Lane, 1200 Eastman Lane, and 1400 Eastman Lane. The motion carried 5/0. 

b. Consider and Adopt Resolution No. 25-2012 Wayzata Yacht Club & Wayzata 

Community Sailing School Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

Mr. Mullin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Tanner, to adopt Resolution No. 25-2012 approving 

an application by the Wayzata Yacht Club and Wayzata Community Sailing Center for a 

comprehensive map amendment related to 1200 Eastman Lane. The motion carried 5/0. 

c. Consider First Reading of Ordinance – Wayzata Yacht Club and Wayzata 

Community Sailing School 

Mr. Mullin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Amdal, to approve the First Reading of an 

Ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone 456 Arlington Circle and 1000 

Eastman Lane from R-2A Single Family Residential District to PUD Planned Unit Development 

District; and to rezone 1100 Eastman Lane, 1200 Eastman Lane, and 1400 Eastman Lane from R- 

1 Low Density Single Family Residential District to PUD Planned Unit Development District. 

The motion carried 5/0. 

Mr. Willcox called a recess at 7:46 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:48 p.m. 

d. Consider Adoption of Water Rate Study & Proposed 2013 Water Rates 

Brian Zinnel of Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. presented the water rate study, 

recommendation for a fixed monthly charge based on meter size, inclining block rates to 

encourage water conservation, phasing in rates from 2013 to 2017, and maintaining at least an 

$800,000 cash balance in the Water Fund. 

Mr. Dudinsky stated he supports the recommendations and advised that the City’s finance 

consultant concurred with the recommended level of cash balance. 

The Council referenced the proposed rates and discussed whether the structure was 

equitable for residential, commercial, and industrial users and would promote conservation. Mr. 

Dudinsky indicated the study results in the ability to justify rates across all categories and the 

fixed charge will stabilize financing to cover fixed expenses. He noted that sizing of the water 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

CC071712-3 

system and amount of capacity is based on peak demand, which is driven from residential users, 

not commercial users. 

Mr. Tanner and Ms. Bader expressed concern that it appears low-volume residential users 

would be charged higher fixed and per gallon rates when compared to high-volume 

commercial/industrial users. 

Naeem Qureshi of Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc., advised that the existing 

structure used inclining block rates for residential users and declining block rates for commercial 

users. They had to create consistency throughout the analysis to assure all users pay equitably. 

Ms. Zinnel stated another consideration is the peak to average ratio. It is an industry 

standard that residential users have a much higher peak to average ratio than a typical commercial 

establishment on those same days. 

Mr. Qureshi noted the total capacity of the system is determined by how much water is 

used during peak demand. Considering the ratio of residential customers versus commercial 

versus institutional, the residential customer has the highest peak to average ratio, causing the 

peak. He advised they have completed 25-30 studies in this area and found the ratio for most 

residential customers is four to one. 

Mr. Zinnel answered questions raised by Ms. Bader relating to nonessential uses, such as 

lawn sprinkling and swimming pools. He indicated that lawn sprinkling is singled out in their 

analysis because a number of customers have a separate irrigation meter. It was noted that 

sprinkling charges are higher but offset by lower sewer charges by having a separate irrigation 

meter. 

Mr. Mullin stated his support for the recommendations, noting the City wants to make 

sure cash reserves are in a position of comfort, there is capital to keep up equipment, and an 

equitable structure is created around rates. He noted the study acknowledges there is less 

variability in the use of large water customers and price does not relate to use based on the 

comments of price elasticity. Mr. Mullin stated the City has already reduced leakage in the 

system and should now focus its attention on putting tools in place to make conservation happen. 

He felt the proposed rate structures protected the City against peaks and valleys and assured 

appropriate cash position. 

Mr. Amdal noted there are different monthly charges for different sizes of service, and 

the standard commercial meter charge is higher. He agreed that commercial demand is more 

constant annually than residential use. 

Mr. Willcox concurred and noted there is a logic to “penalize” the group causing the 

biggest spike which drives the size of the system, and that is residential. However, the impact of 

the new rates is actually a reduction over current rates. Mr. Willcox noted the plan can be 

tweaked, if needed. He believes this is a step in the right direction and meets the DNR’s 

requirements for conservation. 

Ms. Bader asked questions of Mr. Dudinsky relating to gallons used per capita and efforts 

to promote water conservation. Mr. Zinnel advised that a recent study showed that in a pre-1970 

home, just replacing original fixtures with high efficiency will save up to 35% of water use. 

Ms. Bader asked what would have been gained had a sewer study been conducted in 

conjunction with this water study. Mr. Dudinsky explained there could have been some ability to 

look at using sewer rates as tool for water conservation. However, he thinks the rates should be 

separated since the sewer system has its own enterprise fund. 

Ms. Bader stated her strong support for efforts and education to promote water 

conservation including addressing businesses/industries that use fresh water for cooling. 

Mr. Dudinsky explained that if approved, the City’s software will be reprogrammed and 

the rates will start in January 2013. 

The Council supported the suggestion of Mr. Tanner that staff provide a report after one 

year as to results so the Council can determine if the rates need to be tweaked. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

CC071712-4 

Mr. Amdal noted there is a big educational curve and stated his support for the City to 

use the next six months for education. He pointed out that billing will now occur monthly, so 

customers are able to make adjustments, if needed. Mr. Dudinsky advised that the DNR has a lot 

to offer in the area of education. 

Mr. Qureshi described a program used by Rochester, a much larger city, to incentivize 

fixture replacement by giving $25-$50 rebates depending on the fixture replaced. That program 

alone has resulted in Rochester saving over 71 million gallons of water. 

Mr. Amdal made a motion, seconded by Mr. Tanner, to approve the conclusions and 

recommendations of the water rate study including the new proposed 2013 water rates as 

recommended by Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. The motion carried 5/0. 

e. Consider and Adopt Resolution No. 34-2012 Establishing an Advisory Park & Trail 

Board for the City of Wayzata 

Mr. Dudinsky noted the Council had formed a task force to study the City’s existing parks and 

trails resources and that task force had presented a detailed report on those conditions along with 

recommendations, one being to create an Advisory Park & Trail Board. He stated he would 

welcome the formation of this Board, thinks it would have value, and be of benefit in providing a 

prospective from the community. 

Mr. Mullin, task force member, and Ms. Bader, task force chair, stated their support to 

establish this Board, which would serve as champions for parks, bringing ideas for the future, and 

creating community ownership. 

Mr. Dudinsky stated if approved, staff would post notice to recruit membership. 

The Council agreed to staggered terms to assure continuity and restrict membership to 

residents, business owners, or those vested in the community. One of the first Board activities 

will be to craft a mission statement. 

Ms. Bader made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mullin, to adopt Resolution No. 34-2012, 

establishing an advisory Park and Trail Board for the City of Wayzata as amended to include 

staggered terms. The motion carried 5/0. 

f. Consider Approval to Award Bid for Sealcoating of Streets 

Mr. Dudinsky presented the two bids received on July 12, 2012, for the sealcoating of certain 

streets and recommended award to the low bid, noting the project estimate was $57,732. If 

approved, the contractor has until August 31 to complete the project. It was noted the City 

conducts street sweeping after the project. 

The Council acknowledged the City needs to find an equitable method to spread the 

burden for capital improvement projects. 

Mr. Amdal made a motion, seconded by Mr. Turner, to award the 2012 bituminous 

sealcoat bids to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $49,992.89. The motion carried 5/0. 

AGENDA ITEM 6. City Manager's Report and Discussion Items. 

Ms. Nelson reported on upcoming meetings relating to the lakefront and Bushaway Road projects 

and other on-going projects. She announced Night to Unite festivities on August 7, 2012, noting 

the Council’s regular meeting will be rescheduled to August 9, 2012. Ms. Nelson advised of 

upcoming agenda topics and Communications Coordinator applications. 

Mr. Gadow reported on Planning Commission items and indicated the City Attorney has 

been provided with a list of the Commission’s questions related to the telecommunications 

ordinance. Ms. Bader commented on the need to bring that ordinance to a conclusion. 

Mr. Willcox reported on the meeting held with Three Rivers Park District and interest 

expressed in the City’s lakefront and scenic byway opportunities. Mr. Gadow stated the need for 

funding was also raised. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

CC071712-5 

Mr. Amdal noted the cover article for the Minnesota Shopping Association newsletter 

related to Wayzata and its networking coffee this Thursday will be at Sunsets. 

Mr. Mullin reported the Lifetouch Community Foundation will be presenting to the 

Wayzata Fire Department Board on Monday to acknowledge its 100 years of service with a 

commemorative book, which can be used as a fund raiser. Mr. Willcox extended the City’s 

appreciation to Lifetouch and to the Masons for hosting a rib dinner for the Fire and Police 

Departments. 

AGENDA ITEM 7. Public Forum Continued (if necessary). 

There were no comments. 

AGENDA ITEM 8. Adjourn. 

Mr. Tanner made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bader to adjourn. There being no further business, 

Mr. Willcox adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Carla Wirth 

TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 

CC_08092012 


Check Tran Date Search Name Comments Amount Act Code 

088697 7/2/2012 AM.PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC. 2012 DUES 172.50 101-43300-433 



088698 7/2/2012 ANCHOR SCIENTIFIC INC. PARTS 261.75 620-40000-225 

088699 7/2/2012 BARCO MUNICIPAL PRODUCTS PAINT 161.00 610-40000-210 

088699 7/2/2012 BARCO MUNICIPAL PRODUCTS PAINT 162.86 620-40000-210 

088700 7/2/2012 BARTLEY, CHAD FANS FOR 130.22 640-48500-540 

088701 7/2/2012 BETH, JERRY BAR MUSIC 150.00 640-48000-341 

088702 7/2/2012 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ASPHALT 54.17 430-40000-309 

088703 7/2/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 CVR & ACH 108,190.58 630-20300 

088704 7/2/2012 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS 3,213.70 610-40000-216 

088705 7/2/2012 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES CHEMICALS 149.63 101-45200-216 

088706 7/2/2012 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS SIGN POSTS 904.81 101-43100-226 

088707 7/2/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 1,531.90 101-49200-212 

088708 7/2/2012 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC. PARTS 239.40 101-43100-220 

088733 7/3/2012 AMERICAN OFFICE PRODUCTS PD SUPPLIES 18.16 101-42100-200 

088734 7/3/2012 BCA PD TRAINING 175.00 101-42100-434 


088736 7/3/2012 GROVES, JAMES PARKING 9.00 101-42100-331 

088737 7/3/2012 LAMBERT, JEFFREY W. LEGAL 2,677.90 101-42120-304 

088738 7/3/2012 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ADMIN FEE (47.30) 101-00000-34190 

088738 7/3/2012 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SAC FEES 4,730.00 101-20831 

088739 7/3/2012 MN HWY SAFETY & RESEARCH CNTR. PD TRAINING 1,158.00 101-42100-434 

088740 7/3/2012 MORRIS ELECTRONICS, INC. PD SERVICE 1,404.00 101-42100-309 

088741 7/3/2012 NEXTELL COMMUNICATIONS PD SERVICE 186.09 101-42100-323 

088742 7/3/2012 OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG PD SERVICE 272.50 101-42100-309 

088743 7/3/2012 TANGHE, KATY PORTAL & 1,290.00 101-41500-350 

088744 7/5/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 ACH and CVR 61,351.87 630-20300 

088745 7/6/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 ACH & CVR 103,454.33 630-20300 

088747 7/9/2012 AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS FINANCIAL 20,947.50 101-41500-301 

088748 7/9/2012 AT&T MOBILITY SERVICE 475.22 101-41940-321 

088749 7/9/2012 BAER-MALIKOWSKI, JOAN JUNE 2012 FD 155.00 101-42200-409 

088749 7/9/2012 BAER-MALIKOWSKI, JOAN JUNE 2012 FD (10.00) 101-20820 

088750 7/9/2012 BEITO, BARBARA HEALTH INS. 229.84 640-47000-130 

088751 7/9/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN LEGAL 712.50 610-40000-499 


088753 7/9/2012 BIFFS, INC. PARKS 42.80 101-45200-415 

088754 7/9/2012 CANDLELIGHT FLORAL FUNERAL 87.97 101-41500-499 

088755 7/9/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 ACH 42,700.70 630-20300 

088756 7/9/2012 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. MANHOLE 694.69 620-40000-405 

088757 7/9/2012 EULL S MANUFACTURING CO.,INC. MANHOLE 197.72 620-40000-405 

088758 7/9/2012 GILBERT, MELODY BAR MUSIC 300.00 640-48000-341 

088759 7/9/2012 HENN.CNTY.ACCTG.SERVICES PRISONER 608.76 101-42120-308 

088760 7/9/2012 HOME DEPOT SUPPLIES 53.56 610-40000-210 

088760 7/9/2012 HOME DEPOT SUPPLIES 139.00 101-45200-210 

088760 7/9/2012 HOME DEPOT TOOLS 64.73 101-45200-240 

088761 7/9/2012 INTOXIMETERS PD SUPPLIES 114.00 101-42100-210 

088762 7/9/2012 METRO SALES INC. PD SUPPLIES 29.70 101-42100-200 

088763 7/9/2012 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS SIGNS 162.77 101-43100-226 

088763 7/9/2012 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS SIGNS 72.10 101-43100-226 

088764 7/9/2012 NITRO GREEN CHEMICALS 134.09 101-45200-316 

CC_08092012 


088765 7/9/2012 PITNEY BOWES SUPPLIES 134.19 101-49200-322 

088766 7/9/2012 RIGID HITCH INC. SUPPLIES 54.47 101-43100-210 

088766 7/9/2012 RIGID HITCH INC. SUPPLIES 80.11 101-43100-210 

088766 7/9/2012 RIGID HITCH INC. SUPPLIES (72.81) 101-43100-210 

088767 7/9/2012 SCHARBER & SONS SUPPLIES 0.59 101-45200-210 

088767 7/9/2012 SCHARBER & SONS SUPPLIES 36.46 101-45200-222 

088768 7/9/2012 SUN NEWSPAPER TCF LEGAL 44.96 101-20310 

088769 7/9/2012 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED PD UNIFORMS 72.57 101-42100-217 

088770 7/9/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS FD SERVICE 11.91 101-42200-323 

088771 7/9/2012 VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS NEW FD DUES 22.00 101-42200-433 

088772 7/9/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 805.47 101-49200-212 

088772 7/9/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 749.00 101-49200-212 


088774 7/11/2012 ABSOLUTE MECHANICAL HVAC REPAIRS 505.00 101-41940-404 

088775 7/11/2012 ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING SUPPLIES 190.91 101-41500-200 

088775 7/11/2012 ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING TRASH 239.55 101-20300 

088776 7/11/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN JOINT 318.75 101-41500-304 

088777 7/11/2012 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD HEALTH INS. - 31,098.50 101-21706 

088778 7/11/2012 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICE 710.47 101-41940-383 





088779 7/11/2012 CITY VIEW PLUMBING & HEATING RESTROOM 1,266.86 101-41940-404 


088781 7/11/2012 CREATE CONSTRUCTION LAKE 47,643.27 408-40000-309 

088782 7/11/2012 CULLIGAN-METRO KITCHEN 127.66 640-48500-210 

088783 7/11/2012 DAYSPRING WINDOW CLEANING CITY BLDGS. 1,501.66 101-41940-409 


088785 7/11/2012 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS PAINT 91.54 101-43100-226 

088786 7/11/2012 DMX MUSIC - MINNEAPOLIS BAR MUSIC 92.23 640-48000-415 

088787 7/11/2012 GRAINGER, INC. PARTS 20.92 101-43100-226 

088788 7/11/2012 GRAND PERE WINES, INC. WINE 311.00 640-47000-252 

088789 7/11/2012 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC. WINE 1,136.25 640-47000-252 

088790 7/11/2012 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 9% REFUSE 1,298.17 650-20818 

088791 7/11/2012 JOHNSON BROS.-ST.PAUL WINE 4,574.50 640-47000-252 

088791 7/11/2012 JOHNSON BROS.-ST.PAUL LIQ 3,928.37 640-47000-251 

088791 7/11/2012 JOHNSON BROS.-ST.PAUL FREIGHT 124.67 640-47000-259 

088792 7/11/2012 LINNIHAN FOY SAVOUR 711.63 640-47000-341 

088793 7/11/2012 MENARD S SUPPLIES 190.47 101-45200-210 

088794 7/11/2012 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES WETLAND 1,920.00 411-40000-309 

088795 7/11/2012 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE A 203,279.51 406-46122-309 

088796 7/11/2012 PAUSTIS & SONS FREIGHT 70.75 640-47000-259 

088796 7/11/2012 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 4,218.04 640-47000-252 

088797 7/11/2012 PEPSI -COLA MISC.RESALE 272.30 640-47000-254 

088798 7/11/2012 TELEVANTAGE, INC. BEACH 130.00 101-41940-321 

088799 7/11/2012 TIME SAVER MTG.MINUTES 389.88 101-41100-302 

088800 7/11/2012 TRI-CITY WATER 86.50 610-40000-309 

088801 7/11/2012 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. FD GARAGE 5,800.00 238-40000-404 

088802 7/11/2012 XPAND, INC. MARINA 20,160.00 233-40000-309 

088803 7/11/2012 YOCUM OIL EMERGENCY 262.69 101-42500-499 


CC_08092012 


088805 7/13/2012 CRYSTEEL/TBEI, INC. PARKS TRUCK 15,619.74 409-45200-550 


088807 7/13/2012 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE 1,531.43 620-40000-381 


088807 7/13/2012 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE 9.79 101-41940-381 




088807 7/13/2012 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE 465.38 101-42200-381 


088808 7/16/2012 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS BAR SUPPLIES 155.00 640-48000-200 


088810 7/16/2012 BRACKET, DAVID OVERPAYMEN 111.82 610-00000-37110 


088812 7/16/2012 DISTEL, DANIEL MONTHLY 4,090.00 101-41550-302 

088813 7/16/2012 E.W. DAY PLUMBING & HEATING BAR REPAIRS 129.00 640-48000-404 

088814 7/16/2012 GENERAL PARTS, INC. KITCHEN 207.30 640-48500-404 

088815 7/16/2012 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION STREET (990.00) 101-00000-34190 

088815 7/16/2012 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION STREET 999.00 101-20300 

088816 7/16/2012 JAKES EXCAVATING STREET 999.00 101-20310 

088816 7/16/2012 JAKES EXCAVATING STREET (690.00) 101-00000-34190 

088817 7/16/2012 KRAUTH, MAX BAR MUSIC 250.00 640-48000-341 

088818 7/16/2012 LINNIHAN FOY ADVERTISEME (4,521.00) 640-48000-340 

088818 7/16/2012 LINNIHAN FOY ADVERTISEME (4,521.00) 640-47000-340 

088818 7/16/2012 LINNIHAN FOY ADVERTISEME 4,521.00 640-47000-340 

088818 7/16/2012 LINNIHAN FOY ADVERTISEME 4,521.00 640-48000-340 

088819 7/16/2012 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC. NETWORK 3,138.97 101-41500-311 

088820 7/16/2012 LUND S FOOD RESALE 66.18 640-48500-255 

088820 7/16/2012 LUND S MTG.FOOD 51.95 101-41500-331 

088821 7/16/2012 NETWORK BUSINESS SUPPLIES STORE 300.00 640-47000-200 

088821 7/16/2012 NETWORK BUSINESS SUPPLIES BAR SUPPLIES 391.47 640-48000-200 

088822 7/16/2012 WAYZATA ROTARY CLUB DUES 553.85 101-41500-433 

088823 7/17/2012 AMARA FREIGHT 4.00 640-47000-259 

088823 7/17/2012 AMARA WINE 228.00 640-47000-252 

088823 7/17/2012 AMARA WINE 213.00 640-47000-252 

088823 7/17/2012 AMARA FREIGHT 4.00 640-47000-259 

088824 7/17/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. FREIGHT 68.17 640-47000-259 

088824 7/17/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. LIQ 4,982.64 640-47000-251 

088824 7/17/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. MISC 139.49 640-47000-254 

088824 7/17/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. SUPPLIES 127.62 640-47000-210 

088825 7/17/2012 BERNICK`S WINE WINE 537.46 640-47000-252 

088825 7/17/2012 BERNICK`S WINE MISC. 185.20 640-47000-254 

088826 7/17/2012 CAROUSEL AUDI ACH REFUND 8,621.34 630-20300 

088827 7/17/2012 CORE/CONDITIONING TRAINING FD TRAINING 1,500.00 101-42200-306 

088828 7/17/2012 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 1,769.50 640-47000-253 

088828 7/17/2012 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 564.00 640-48000-253 

088829 7/17/2012 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 4,441.25 640-47000-253 



088831 7/17/2012 DOMACE VINO WINE 252.00 640-47000-252 

088831 7/17/2012 DOMACE VINO FREIGHT 2.00 640-47000-259 

088832 7/17/2012 HEGGIES PIZZA FOOD RESALE 170.40 640-48500-255 

CC_08092012 


088833 7/17/2012 IMPACT MAILING & FULFILLMENT UTILITY BILL 3,000.00 610-40000-322 

088833 7/17/2012 IMPACT MAILING & FULFILLMENT UTILITY BILL 3,000.00 620-40000-322 

088834 7/17/2012 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING OF MN BEER 8,084.80 640-47000-253 

088834 7/17/2012 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING OF MN BEER 422.70 640-48000-253 




088836 7/17/2012 LMCD 3RD ATR.2012 8,932.75 233-40000-437 

088837 7/17/2012 MINNETONKA, CITY OF WATER 960.12 610-40000-437 

088838 7/17/2012 MN UC FUND UNEMPLOYME 4,280.42 640-48000-140 

088839 7/17/2012 OFFICE DEPOT SUPPLIES 20.00 640-48000-200 



088840 7/17/2012 PAUSTIS & SONS BAR WINE 302.00 640-48000-252 


088841 7/17/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS MISC. 105.00 640-47000-254 

088841 7/17/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS FREIGHT 124.44 640-47000-259 

088841 7/17/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS WINE 4,101.20 640-47000-252 

088841 7/17/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS LIQ 4,200.25 640-47000-251 

088841 7/17/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS BAR LIQ. 397.18 640-48000-251 

088842 7/17/2012 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE 170.65 101-49200-322 

088843 7/17/2012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN FREIGHT 180.45 640-47000-259 

088843 7/17/2012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN WINE 10,950.84 640-47000-252 

088843 7/17/2012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN LIQ 11,955.03 640-47000-251 

088844 7/17/2012 SPENCER JANITORIAL BAR MONTHLY 2,134.72 640-48000-409 

088845 7/17/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND CH SUPPLIES 361.23 101-41940-210 

088845 7/17/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND BAR SUPPLIES 241.07 640-48000-210 

088845 7/17/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND FRYER 768.52 640-48500-540 

088845 7/17/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND KITCHEN 521.15 640-48500-210 

088846 7/17/2012 SUN NEWSPAPER LEGAL NOTICE 338.72 101-41500-350 

088846 7/17/2012 SUN NEWSPAPER LEGAL NOTICE 41.97 101-41500-350 

088846 7/17/2012 SUN NEWSPAPER LEGAL NOTICE 47.96 101-20310 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA TRAINING 65.00 640-48000-499 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA LIQ 120.80 640-48000-251 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA MISC.BEV. 25.17 640-48000-254 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA PROMO FOOD 118.86 640-48000-342 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA KITCHEN 223.61 640-48500-210 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLIES 347.23 640-48000-210 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA STORE MISC. 24.94 640-47000-254 

088847 7/17/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA FOOD 12,544.08 640-48500-255 

088848 7/17/2012 SYSTEM ONE CONTROL HVAC 4,120.00 101-41940-404 

088849 7/17/2012 T.D. ANDERSON INC. BEER LINES 60.00 640-48000-409 

088850 7/17/2012 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 8,065.45 640-47000-253 

088850 7/17/2012 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 837.00 640-48000-253 

088851 7/17/2012 TIME SAVER MTG.MINUTES 342.08 101-41100-302 

088852 7/17/2012 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY BAR SUPPLIES 92.69 640-48000-210 


088853 7/17/2012 VINO ANDES WINE 150.00 640-47000-252 

088853 7/17/2012 VINO ANDES FREIGHT 2.05 640-47000-253 

088854 7/17/2012 VINOCOPIA WINE 1,503.04 640-47000-252 

088855 7/17/2012 WINE COMPANY WINE 1,088.00 640-47000-252 

088855 7/17/2012 WINE COMPANY FREIGHT 14.85 640-47000-259 

CC_08092012 


088856 7/17/2012 WINE MERCHANT WINE 3,049.26 640-47000-252 

088856 7/17/2012 WINE MERCHANT FREIGHT 31.51 640-47000-259 

088857 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN BEER BEER 870.00 640-48000-253 

088857 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN BEER BEER 8,779.31 640-47000-253 

088858 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI FREIGHT 108.75 640-47000-259 

088858 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI WINE 5,221.29 640-47000-252 

088858 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI LIQ 6,417.56 640-47000-251 

088858 7/17/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI MISC. 95.00 640-47000-254 

088859 7/17/2012 Z WINES USA LLC FREIGHT 7.50 640-47000-259 

088859 7/17/2012 Z WINES USA LLC WINE 300.00 640-47000-252 

088860 7/18/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 ACH & CVR 12,196.18 630-20300 

088861 7/19/2012 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY MONTHLY 1,792.57 101-41940-409 

088861 7/19/2012 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY PW MONTHLY 448.42 101-41940-409 

088861 7/19/2012 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY BATH HOUSE 272.48 233-40000-220 


088863 7/19/2012 CONSTRUCTION MIDWEST, INC. SUPPLIES 50.23 101-43100-210 


088865 7/19/2012 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATES 152.50 610-40000-313 

088865 7/19/2012 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATES 152.50 620-40000-313 

088866 7/19/2012 HENN.CNTY.INFO.TECH.DEPT. PW RADIO 100.00 101-43100-323 




088867 7/19/2012 HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY PARTS 69.26 101-43100-220 

088868 7/19/2012 ICMA DUES 2012 832.00 101-41500-433 

088869 7/19/2012 INFRATECH SEWER LINES 220.00 620-40000-409 

088870 7/19/2012 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC. COMPUTERS 4,044.27 409-40000-540 

088871 7/19/2012 M. REINERT DRYWALL FD REMODEL 3,488.00 408-40000-520 

088872 7/19/2012 MEDIACOM SERVICE 249.95 235-40000-499 

088873 7/19/2012 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENG. WATER RATE 463.99 405-46121-302 

088874 7/19/2012 ROBERTS, SCOTT PARKS 117.95 101-45200-210 

088875 7/19/2012 RUDY LUTHER CVR REFUND 778.50 630-20300 

088876 7/19/2012 SPECIALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLIES 1,100.82 101-45200-229 

088877 7/19/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 2,333.87 101-49200-212 

088877 7/19/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 2,463.68 101-49200-212 

088878 7/20/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 ACH and CVR 38,051.98 630-20300 


088880 7/23/2012 DAVENPORT, RANELLE OVERPAYMEN 90.70 610-00000-37110 


088882 7/23/2012 REYCRAFT, TOM BAR MUSIC 200.00 640-48000-341 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD FUEL 58.56 101-42200-212 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD MISC.EXP. 472.84 101-42200-499 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD DUES 80.00 101-42200-433 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD 100.00 101-42200-306 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD SUPPLIES 369.25 101-42200-210 

088883 7/24/2012 BANK OF AMERICA FD MILEAGE 88.01 101-42200-331 


088885 7/24/2012 HENN.CNTY.INFO.TECH.DEPT. FD RADIO 661.15 101-42200-323 

088886 7/24/2012 HOEFKER, TROY FD SUPPLIES 182.61 101-42200-210 

088887 7/24/2012 LEXUS ACH REFUND 5,188.40 630-20300 

088888 7/24/2012 MEYER, BILL FD SUPPLIES 264.33 101-42200-210 

088889 7/25/2012 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS COPIER 628.76 101-41500-200 

CC_08092012 


088889 7/25/2012 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS COPIER 158.90 101-41500-404 

088890 7/25/2012 AIRTECH LIBRARY 275.00 437-40000-404 

088891 7/25/2012 BATTERY PRODUCTS INC. FD TOOLS 66.90 101-42200-240 

088891 7/25/2012 BATTERY PRODUCTS INC. FD TOOLS 126.85 101-42200-240 

088892 7/25/2012 BENNETT, DARLENE MILEAGE 17.75 630-40000-331 

088893 7/25/2012 BERLIN, MARK ESCROW 1,295.00 101-20310 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN BAY CENTER 106.65 101-20310 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN UNITARIAN 5,075.80 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN MISC.RETAINE 14.80 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN ORDINANCES 1,012.50 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN CITY COUNCIL 397.90 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN LIQ.LICENSES 2,536.20 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN 309 WALKER - 918.70 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN YACHT CLUB 450.00 101-41500-304 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN TCF ESCROW 285.00 101-20310 

088894 7/25/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN PLANNING 225.00 101-41500-304 

088895 7/25/2012 C.O.R.P., INC. ESCROW 3,444.04 101-20310 

088896 7/25/2012 CHARLES CUDD DE NOVO, LLC ESCROW 3,000.00 101-20310 

088897 7/25/2012 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA DENTAL INS. 1,362.75 101-21717 


088899 7/25/2012 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS TRAFFIC 257.78 101-43100-226 

088900 7/25/2012 FISHER, CHERYL MILEAGE 10.54 630-40000-331 

088901 7/25/2012 GILDEMEISTER, JANELLE MILEAGE 139.35 630-40000-331 

088902 7/25/2012 GRAINGER, INC. SUPPLIES 5.70 620-40000-210 

088903 7/25/2012 HENDRICKSEN PSG OFFICE 884.93 101-41500-499 

088904 7/25/2012 LEAGUE OF MN.CITIES HANDBOOK 58.78 101-41500-200 

088905 7/25/2012 LINNIHAN FOY STORE/BAR 2,956.25 640-48000-340 

088905 7/25/2012 LINNIHAN FOY STORE/BAR 2,956.25 640-47000-340 

088906 7/25/2012 MAIN STREET BAKERY FOOD RESALE 2,248.96 640-48500-255 

088907 7/25/2012 METRO FIRE FD TRAINING 96.86 101-42200-434 

088908 7/25/2012 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER 33,317.36 620-40000-386 

088909 7/25/2012 MEYER, KATIE MILEAGE 19.98 630-40000-331 

088910 7/25/2012 MMBA 2012 DUES 720.00 640-47000-433 

088910 7/25/2012 MMBA 2012 DUES 720.00 640-48000-433 

088911 7/25/2012 NORTHWESTERN FRUIT COMPANY FOOD RESALE 2,368.15 640-48500-255 




088913 7/25/2012 PITTSBURGH PAINTS TRAFFIC 62.90 101-43100-226 

088914 7/25/2012 POPP TELECOM SERVICE 128.98 610-40000-323 



088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION STICKERS 82.55 650-47500-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION LABOR 7,783.84 650-47500-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION KARTS 1,355.73 650-47500-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION DRIVE UP 923.10 650-47500-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION ORGANICS 3,546.40 650-47800-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION DISPOSAL 3,333.24 650-47500-386 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION PW & CH 1,117.80 101-41940-386 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION STORE 90.00 640-47000-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION BAR 318.45 640-48000-384 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION ORGANICS 99.45 650-47800-386 

CC_08092012 


088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION STICKERS (239.55) 101-20300 

088915 7/25/2012 RANDY S SANITATION RECYCLING 1,860.00 650-47600-309 

088916 7/25/2012 SCHARBER & SONS PARTS 104.02 101-45200-221 

088917 7/25/2012 SECURITY PRODUCTS COMPANY BAR SUPPORT 62.50 640-48000-404 

088918 7/25/2012 SMALL BUSINESS MAVERICKS STORE/BAR 125.00 640-48000-340 

088918 7/25/2012 SMALL BUSINESS MAVERICKS STORE/BAR 125.00 640-47000-340 

088919 7/25/2012 SMITH, WILLIAM ESCROW 708.00 101-20310 


088921 7/25/2012 VICKERS CONSULTING SERVICES GRANT 100.00 101-42200-499 

088922 7/26/2012 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS PW SUPPLIES 25.83 620-40000-200 




088923 7/26/2012 BEST & FLANAGAN CUMMINS 1,407.70 610-40000-303 

088924 7/26/2012 CARQUEST OF WAYZATA SUPPLIES 19.27 620-40000-210 


088926 7/26/2012 ELECTRIC PUMP, INC. SEWER LIFT 149.63 620-40000-210 

088927 7/26/2012 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. MANHOLE 373.53 620-40000-225 

088928 7/26/2012 HENN.CNTY.ACCTG.SERVICES SUPPLIES 92.25 101-43100-220 



088930 7/26/2012 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY PW MAINT. 261.35 101-41940-404 

088931 7/26/2012 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES SUPPLIES 166.19 101-45203-220 

088932 7/26/2012 JONES, REBECCA MILEAGE 6.11 650-47600-331 

088933 7/26/2012 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS.TRUST ADD.INS.PREM 289.00 101-49200-361 

088934 7/26/2012 MORRIE S MINNETONKA FORD PARTS 261.83 101-45200-222 

088935 7/26/2012 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PARTS 222.57 101-45200-222 

088936 7/26/2012 RIGID HITCH INC. PARTS 147.42 101-45200-222 

088936 7/26/2012 RIGID HITCH INC. PARTS 31.45 101-45200-222 

088937 7/26/2012 TIMM S LUMBER AND SAWING SUPPLIES 58.00 101-45200-222 

088938 7/26/2012 VAN PAPER COMPANY SUPPLIES 30.00 620-40000-200 





088939 7/26/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 396.80 101-49200-212 

088939 7/26/2012 YOCUM OIL FUEL 2,236.24 101-49200-212 


088941 7/30/2012 AFSCME COUNCIL JULY 2012 PW 382.40 101-21709 

088942 7/30/2012 BENNETT, DARLENE JULY 2012 100.00 630-40000-130 


088944 7/30/2012 BRAKKE, GARY R. FIRE RELIEF 4,400.00 101-41500-301 


088946 7/30/2012 FISHER, CHERYL JULY 2012 100.00 630-40000-130 

088947 7/30/2012 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR PD UNION 405.00 101-21707 

088948 7/30/2012 LINNIHAN FOY BAR / STORE 1,070.00 640-48000-340 

088948 7/30/2012 LINNIHAN FOY BAR / STORE 106.00 640-48000-340 

088948 7/30/2012 LINNIHAN FOY BAR / STORE 1,500.00 640-48000-340 

088949 7/30/2012 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC. 4 NEW 1,696.29 409-40000-540 

088950 7/30/2012 MCCARTHY, LYNN VOLUNTEER 68.88 101-41100-493 

088951 7/30/2012 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE LIFE INS. 48.00 101-21715 

088952 7/30/2012 POLLOCK, PATRICIA OVERPAYMEN 38.55 610-00000-37110 

CC_08092012 


088953 7/30/2012 WILLIAMS, CRAIG JULY 2012 300.00 640-48000-130 

088954 7/30/2012 WUOLLET, KAYLEIGH JULY 2012 94.00 630-40000-130 

088955 7/31/2012 BEITO, BARBARA JULY 2012 229.84 640-47000-130 

088956 7/31/2012 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY MISC.BEV. 14.00 101-41500-499 




088957 7/31/2012 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 126 UNMARKED 5.00 101-42100-404 

088958 7/31/2012 DIRECTV BAR TV 332.35 640-48000-415 

088959 7/31/2012 GOLIO, TAMMIE CRIME FREE 25.00 101-20300 

088960 7/31/2012 KARLSBURGER FOODS, INC. FOOD RESALE 192.60 640-48500-255 

088960 7/31/2012 KARLSBURGER FOODS, INC. FOOD RESALE 265.55 640-48500-255 

088961 7/31/2012 LONG LAKE TRU VALUE SUPPLIES 30.10 101-43100-210 




088962 7/31/2012 MILLER, FRED WCTV 1,500.00 235-40000-302 


088964 7/31/2012 T.D. ANDERSON INC. BEER LINES 60.00 640-48000-409 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH KITCHEN 221.50 640-48500-210 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH PD SUPPLIES 48.44 101-42100-210 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH GODADDY 68.53 101-41500-433 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH MTG.MEALS 137.54 101-41500-331 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH FLOWERS - 42.00 101-41500-499 

088965 7/31/2012 VISA - FIRSTNATIONAL BANK OMAH CONF.EXP. 236.96 101-41500-331 

088966 7/31/2012 ZERO WASTE USA WASTE BAG 397.73 101-20300 

088966 7/31/2012 ZERO WASTE USA WASTE BAG 27.34 101-45200-210 

088966 7/31/2012 ZERO WASTE USA WASTE BAG (27.34) 101-20820 

088967 8/1/2012 ABSOLUTE MECHANICAL MUNI HVAC 622.00 640-48000-401 

088967 8/1/2012 ABSOLUTE MECHANICAL MUNI HVAC 220.00 640-48000-401 

088968 8/1/2012 AMARA WINE 871.80 640-47000-252 

088968 8/1/2012 AMARA WINE 162.00 640-47000-252 

088968 8/1/2012 AMARA FREIGHT 8.00 640-47000-259 

088968 8/1/2012 AMARA FREIGHT 2.00 640-47000-259 

088969 8/1/2012 ARCTIC GLACIER INC. ICE RESALE 1,302.02 640-47000-254 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. FREIGHT 92.01 640-47000-259 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. MISC. 218.97 640-47000-254 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. CIGARS 223.60 640-47000-256 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. SUPPLIES 177.54 640-47000-210 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. WINE 64.00 640-47000-252 

088970 8/1/2012 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY CORP. LIQ 6,768.50 640-47000-251 

088971 8/1/2012 BERNICK`S WINE MISC.MDSE.RE 437.10 640-47000-254 

088972 8/1/2012 BOURGET IMPORTS WINE 1,260.71 640-47000-252 

088972 8/1/2012 BOURGET IMPORTS FREIGHT 19.50 640-47000-259 

088972 8/1/2012 BOURGET IMPORTS FREIGHT 13.50 640-47000-259 

088972 8/1/2012 BOURGET IMPORTS WINE 776.00 640-47000-252 

088973 8/1/2012 BRIMEYER FURSMAN STRATEGIC 4,112.20 101-41500-302 

088974 8/1/2012 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE WINE 636.00 640-47000-252 

088975 8/1/2012 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY FIRST AID 29.93 101-41940-210 




CC_08092012 




088976 8/1/2012 COCA-COLA MISC.BEV.RES 2,055.80 640-48000-254 

088976 8/1/2012 COCA-COLA MISC.BEV.RES 434.40 640-47000-254 

088977 8/1/2012 COZZINI BROS., INC. KNIFE 162.25 640-48500-415 

088978 8/1/2012 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 1,522.10 640-47000-253 

088978 8/1/2012 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 654.00 640-48000-253 



088980 8/1/2012 EXTREME BEVERAGE, LLC MISC.BEV.RES 100.50 640-47000-254 

088981 8/1/2012 G & K SERVICES SUPPLIES & 500.00 640-48500-210 

088981 8/1/2012 G & K SERVICES SUPPLIES & 864.59 640-48500-217 

088982 8/1/2012 GRAND PERE WINES, INC. FREIGHT 2.00 640-47000-259 

088982 8/1/2012 GRAND PERE WINES, INC. WINE 1,087.80 640-47000-252 


088983 8/1/2012 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC. FREIGHT 17.50 640-47000-259 


088983 8/1/2012 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC. FREIGHT 21.00 640-47000-259 

088984 8/1/2012 HEGGIES PIZZA FOOD RESALE 358.80 640-48500-255 

088985 8/1/2012 HOHENSTEINS INC. BEER 1,035.50 640-47000-253 

088986 8/1/2012 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING OF MN BEER 865.75 640-48000-253 

088986 8/1/2012 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING OF MN BEER 3,783.92 640-47000-253 




088988 8/1/2012 MAIN STREET BAKERY FOOD RESALE 2,125.36 640-48500-255 

088989 8/1/2012 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY WINE 243.00 640-47000-252 

088990 8/1/2012 NORTHWESTERN FRUIT COMPANY FOOD RESALE 3,065.75 640-48500-255 



088992 8/1/2012 PEPSI -COLA MISC.BEV.RES 333.90 640-47000-254 

088993 8/1/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS FREIGHT 88.65 640-47000-259 

088993 8/1/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS WINE 3,822.36 640-47000-252 

088993 8/1/2012 PHILLIPS WINES & SPIRITS LIQ 964.38 640-47000-251 

088994 8/1/2012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN LIQ 8,505.31 640-47000-251 

088994 8/1/2012 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN WINE 2,606.87 640-47000-252 

088995 8/1/2012 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. TCF PROJECT - 776.00 101-20310 

088996 8/1/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND BAR SUPPLIES 929.13 640-48000-210 

088996 8/1/2012 STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT AND KITCHEN 549.42 640-48500-210 

088997 8/1/2012 SUNBURST CHEMICALS, INC. KITCHEN 1,474.00 640-48500-210 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA MISC. 74.76 101-20300 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA LIQ 347.13 640-48000-251 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA MISC.BEV. 159.61 640-48000-254 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA PROMO FOOD 366.60 640-48000-342 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA KITCHEN 469.03 640-48500-210 

088998 8/1/2012 SYSCO MINNESOTA FOOD RESALE 33,750.61 640-48500-255 

088999 8/1/2012 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 7,229.10 640-47000-253 

088999 8/1/2012 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. BEER 946.65 640-48000-253 

089000 8/1/2012 TKO WINES, INC. WINE 945.00 640-47000-252 

089001 8/1/2012 VINO ANDES WINE 837.00 640-47000-252 

089001 8/1/2012 VINO ANDES FREIGHT 18.45 640-47000-259 


CC_08092012 



089002 8/1/2012 VINOCOPIA FREIGHT 19.50 640-47000-259 

089002 8/1/2012 VINOCOPIA FREIGHT 6.00 640-47000-259 

089003 8/1/2012 WINE COMPANY WINE 2,838.00 640-47000-252 

089003 8/1/2012 WINE COMPANY FREIGHT 46.35 640-47000-259 


089004 8/1/2012 WINE MERCHANT WINE 700.00 640-47000-252 

089004 8/1/2012 WINE MERCHANT WINE 1,192.00 640-47000-252 


089005 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN BEER BEER 6,357.80 640-47000-253 

089005 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN BEER BEER 659.00 640-48000-253 

089006 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI LIQ 4,611.74 640-47000-251 

089006 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI MISC. 195.00 640-47000-254 

089006 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI WINE 4,375.42 640-47000-252 

089006 8/1/2012 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRI FREIGHT 118.90 640-47000-259 

2,411,806.21 

CC_08092012 


8/9/2012 

THE FOLLOWING 2012 MUNICIPAL LICENSES 

WERE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

2012 Food Vehicle License (Recreational Vehicle) 

Gianni's Steakhouse 

Special Event Itinerant Food License - James J Hill Days 9/8 & 9/9/2012 

Harvest Grill Food Truck Plymouth, MN 

Sushi Fix Minneapolis, MN 

2012 Tree Removal and Treatment License 

Hugo's Tree Care, Inc. Hugo, MN 

Rivard Contracting East Bethel, MN 

CC_08092012 


2012 MUNICIPAL LICENSES 

FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ON 08/09/12 

(Recommended for approval pending staff review of and completeness of 

application materials pursuant to licensing requirements outlined in City Ordinance.) 

2012 Therapeutic Massage Personal License 

Juut Salon Spa - Colleen Marie Baierl 1125 Wayzata Boulevard E. 

CC_08092012 


Public Financial Management, Inc. 

PFM Asset Management LLC 

PFM Advisors 

Memorandum 

800 Nicollet Mall 

Suite 2710 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

August 2, 2012 

To: Mayor Willcox & City Council 

From: Jeanne Vanda, Managing Director, Matt Schnackenberg, Senior Managing Consultant 

CC: Heidi Nelson, City Manager 

Re: Bond Related Action Items for August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting. 

612-338-3535 

612-338-7264 fax 

www.pfm.com 

Overview 

The City Council will be asked to take action on several items related to the issuance of municipal 

bonds at its August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting. These items are as follow: 

� Consider adoption of a Resolution approving Written Procedures related to compliance with 

United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) restrictions with the use of tax-exempt 

municipal bond proceeds. 

� Consider adoption of a Resolution Relating to Financing an Improvement Project; 

Establishing Compliance with Reimbursement Bond Regulations Under the Internal 

Revenue Code; 

� Consider adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds; 

and 

� Consider adoption of a Resolution Calling for the Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 

2012A, 2012B, and 2012C. 

Written Procedures 

These procedures formalize practices already in place related to payment of qualified capital projects 

from tax-exempt bond proceeds, and tracking investment earnings on bond fund balances for 

purposes of arbitrage rebate. These procedures acknowledge the responsibility of the City to ensure 

that bond proceeds are not spent for projects or expenditures not authorized by the City Council 

and that all projects financed with bond proceeds are deemed “qualified capital projects” under the 

tax code. Forms that the City will be required to file with the IRS upon closing of any tax-exempt 

bonds will reference the existence of written procedures. This is a new requirement since the City’s 

last bond issuance in 2011. 

The procedures have been reviewed by City staff and Steve McDonald, of AEM Financial Solutions. 

Resolution Related to Reimbursement of Sanitary Sewer Project Costs 

This resolution establishes the intent of the City Council to reimburse funds previously spent on the 

Circle “A” sanitary sewer project from bond proceeds to be sold at future date. The IRS requires 

CC_08092012 


PFM Memo on 2012 Bonds 

August 2, 2012 

Page 2 

acknowledgement of the reimbursement intent. The City can then reimburse any construction costs 

expended in the sixty days prior to the adoption of the resolution. This will cover all expenditures 

paid to date on the Circle “A” sanitary sewer project. 

Ordinance & Resolution Related to Issuance of Bonds 

The City’s Charter requires that bonds be authorized by adoption of an ordinance, with a 4/5 th 

vote of the City Council. The Resolution calls for the sale of the bonds in the maximum amounts 

specified. The bonds are for the following purposes: 

� Series 2012A G.O. Refunding Bonds. Bond proceeds will refund on a current basis the 

$2,115,000 outstanding Series 2004A (Big Woods) Bonds. Total savings over the remaining 

11 years is estimated at $188,000, with a present value of $167,000, or 7.9% of the bond par 

amount. 

� The Series 2012B G.O. Improvement Bonds will provide financing for the portion of the 

Holdridge project costs that will be assessed against benefited property owners. 

� The Series 2012C G.O. Improvement Bonds will provide financing for the sanitary 

improvements related to upsizing pipe capacity for the Wayzata Bay redevelopment project. 

The Wayzata Bay Corporation will pay 100% of the debt service costs through special 

assessments. 

PFM will attend the planned work session on August 9 to review these bond related agenda items 

and respond to any questions from the City Council. 

CC_08092012 


RESOLUTION NO. 

RESOLUTION RELATING TO WRITTEN PROCEDURES 

RELATED TO POST-ISSUANCE TAX COMPLIANCE FOR 

ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS UNDER THE 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wayzata, 

Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: 

1. Recitals. 

(a) The United States Internal Revenue service has promulgated 

regulations governing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, the expenditure of bond proceeds and 

the obligations of issuers related to post-issuance compliance; and 

(b) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Internal 

Revenue Service with respect post-issuance compliance. 

2. Authorization and Adoption of Written Procedures. The City Council of the 

City of Wayzata hereby authorizes and adopts Post-Issuance Tax Compliance Procedures for 

Tax-Exempt Bonds to be issued by the City. The procedures establish procedures and 

requirements to ensure that bond proceeds are expended for qualified capital projects, that 

expenditures are made as authorized by the City Council and that investment earning from bond 

proceeds are monitored for arbitrage compliance purposes. 

Adopted by the Wayzata City Council this 9 th day of August, 2012. 

ATTEST: 

City Manager Heidi Nelson 

ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: 

Motion for adoption: 

Mayor Kenneth Willcox 

CC_08092012 


Seconded by: 

Voted in favor of: 

Voted against: 

Abstained: 

Absent: 

Resolution Adopted: 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City 

Council of the City of Wayzata, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on August 9, 2012. 

Becky Malone, Deputy City Clerk 

T:\Administrative\2012 Meetings\CITY COUNCIL\08092012\Drafts\Written Procedures Resolution.doc 

2 

CC_08092012 


I. Purpose 

City of Wayzata, Minnesota 

(the “Issuer” or “City”) 

Post-Issuance Tax Compliance Procedures 

For Tax-Exempt Bonds 

Dated: August 9, 2012 

These procedures are adopted by the City to ensure that interest on tax-exempt bonds of 

the Issuer (or “Bonds”) remains excludable from gross income under Section 103 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). 

These written procedures are intended to formally memorialize certain policies and 

practices of the City previously adopted or followed by the City in connection with its issuance 

of Bonds. The City reserves the right to use its discretion as necessary and appropriate to make 

exceptions to these procedures as facts and circumstances warrant. 

II. Expenditure/Use of Bond Proceeds 

A. Expenditure of Bond proceeds will be regularly reviewed by the Finance Manager 

and/or Finance Department for consistency with the Capital Improvement Program and Bond 

documents, including any Bond Resolution or Trust Indenture and the Issuer’s Tax Certificate. 

B. The City’s Finance Department has separately established a form and procedures 

for preparation and review requests for payment of capital project expenses from Bond proceeds 

as part of its accounting system. 

C. Requests must identify the Bond-financed property in conformity with the 

Issuer’s Tax Certificate executed at closing of the Bonds, including the character of the Bondfinanced 

property. Such information is contained as part of the City’s accounting system. 

D. None of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to reimburse the City for costs 

paid prior to the date of issuance of the Bonds unless the City shall have fully complied with 

Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations with respect to such reimbursed amounts, which 

section is summarized in Exhibit A hereto. 

E. Staff costs may be financed with Bond proceeds only to the extent that they are 

properly capitalized as a cost of a capital project under generally accepted accounting principles 

and federal tax law. 

F. Requests for expenditures will be summarized in a “final allocation” of Bond 

proceeds to uses not later than 18 months after the in-service date of the Bond-financed property 

(and in any event not later than 5 years and 60 days after the issuance of the Bonds and not later 

than 60 days after earlier retirement of the issue) in a manner consistent with the Code and 

Treasury Regulations and the applicable Tax Certificate. 

CC_08092012 


G. Expenditure of proceeds of the Bonds will be measured against the Issuer’s Tax 

Certificate expectation to spend or commit 5% of net sale proceeds within 6 months, to spend 

85% of net sale proceeds within 3 years, and to proceed with due diligence to complete the 

capital project and fully spend the net sale and investment proceeds. The Finance Manager shall 

maintain documentation regarding the City’s compliance with the small issuer exception under 

Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. In the event that the Bonds do not qualify for the small issuer 

exception under Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code, or the spending exceptions under the Code 

from the arbitrage rebate requirements are not met, calculations of rebate liability will be 

performed or caused to be performed by as provided herein. 

H. If there are any Bond proceeds remaining other than in a reserve or debt service 

fund established pursuant to the Bond Resolution or Trust Indenture after completion of the 

project, such proceeds shall be applied in a manner consistent with the applicable Bond 

Resolution or Trust Indenture and Tax Certificate or pursuant to advice from Bond Counsel. 

I. In the event that Bond proceeds are to be used to make a grant to an unrelated 

party, a grant agreement will be reviewed prior to execution for compliance with the Code. Such 

agreement will be approved by the Finance Manager, with advice or consent of Bond Counsel, as 

necessary. The repayment of any portion of a grant by the grantee shall be treated as unspent 

Bond proceeds. 

J. In the event that Bond proceeds are to be loaned to a conduit borrower, such 

conduit borrower will be required to agree to all terms of the Tax Certificate and provide 

evidence of post-issuance tax compliance procedures deemed adequate and consistent with those 

set forth herein; and all such obligations for post-issuance tax compliance shall be assumed by 

such conduit borrower. 

III. Use of Bond-Financed Property 

A. Use of Bond-financed property when completed and placed in service will be 

reviewed by the Director of Public Works, who shall be trained regarding restrictions on the use 

of Bond proceeds and facilities financed thereby and instructed to consult with the Finance 

Manager regarding any third-party contract concerning use of the facilities, including without 

limitation leases, use, management or service contracts, and research contracts. 

B. Upon issuance of Bonds, there shall be no expectation that the Bond-financed 

property will be sold or otherwise disposed of by the Issuer during the term of the Bonds, except 

for replacement due to normal wear and tear or obsolescence. 

C. Agreements with third parties for lease, use, management, or any other service 

agreement or research contract with respect to, or non-governmental use in respect of, Bondfinanced 

property will be reviewed prior to execution for compliance with the Code. Such 

agreement will be approved by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager, 

who will be responsible for determining whether the proposed agreement (1) results in private 

business use of the facilities, and (2) if applicable, meets the compensation, term and other 

requirements under Revenue Procedures 97-13 (included as Exhibit B) and 2007-47; all upon 

advice of Bond Counsel, as necessary. 

-2- 

CC_08092012 


D. No item of Bond-financed property will be sold or transferred by the City without 

approval of the City Manager, who shall seek advice of Bond Counsel, to provide guidance as to 

“remedial action” that may be required under the applicable Treasury Regulations if Bonds 

financing such property remain outstanding as of the date of sale or transfer of such property. 

Remedial action is summarized in Exhibit C hereto. 

E. The City acknowledges that any sale, transfer, change in use, or change in users 

of the Bond-financed property may require remedial action, as previously described, or 

resolution pursuant to the IRS Voluntary Closing Agreement Program (or “VCAP”) to assist in 

resolving violations of the federal tax laws applicable to the Bonds. 

IV. Investments 

A. Investment of Bond proceeds in compliance with the arbitrage and rebate 

requirements of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations will be managed and supervised 

by the Finance Department, with the advice of outside consultants, as needed. 

B. Guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”) will be purchased according to the fair 

market value provisions of applicable Treasury Regulations, including bid requirements and fee 

limitations. 

C. Calculations of rebate liability will be performed by outside consultants and 

reviewed by the Finance Department. Such calculations shall be made annually, as necessary, 

and prior to each 5 year anniversary of the date of issue of the Bonds. 

D. Upon final expenditure of the gross proceeds of Bonds, and in any event promptly 

following the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance of the Bonds or earlier retirement of the 

Bonds, the Finance Department will consult a qualified professional to prepare a spending 

exception report or an arbitrage rebate computation (as applicable) for the issue of Bonds. 

E. Rebate payments, as required based upon the advice of a qualified professional, 

will be made with Form 8038-T no later than 60 days after (a) each fifth anniversary of the date 

of issuance of the Bonds and (b) the final retirement of the Bond issue. 

V. Record Management and Retention 

A. Management and retention of records related to Bond issues will be supervised by 

the Finance Manager. 

B. Records for Bonds will be retained for not less than the life of the Bonds, plus any 

refunding bonds, plus three years. Such records may be in the form of documents or electronic 

copies of documents, appropriately indexed to specific Bond issues and compliance functions. 

C. Retainable records pertaining to Bond issuance shall include a transcript of 

documents executed in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and any amendments; and 

copies of rebate calculations and records of payments, including Forms 8038-T. 

-3- 

CC_08092012 


D. Retainable records pertaining to expenditures of Bond proceeds include 

requisitions; trustee statements, if applicable; and final allocation of proceeds. 

E. Retainable records pertaining to use of Bond-financed property include all thirdparty 

contracts concerning use of the facilities, including (without limitation) leases, use, 

management or service contracts, and research contracts. 

F. Retainable records pertaining to investments include GIC documents under the 

Treasury Regulations, records of purchase and sale of other investments, and records of 

investment activity sufficient to permit calculation of arbitrage rebate or demonstration that no 

rebate is due. 

VI. Overall Responsibility 

A. Overall administration and coordination of this policy and the procedures set forth 

herein are the responsibility of the City Manager. 

B. Review of compliance with this policy and the procedures set forth herein shall be 

undertaken periodically, and in any event, not less than annually. 

C. The City understands that failure to comply with these policies and procedures 

could result in the retroactive loss of the exclusion of interest on Bonds from federal gross and 

Minnesota taxable net income; and, thus, it would be advisable to consult with Bond Counsel in 

advance regarding deviations from the facts and expectations as set forth in the closing 

certifications relating to any issue of Bonds. 

D. Any violations or potential violations of federal tax requirements shall promptly 

be reported to the Finance Manager, and the Finance Manager will engage qualified consultants 

and bond counsel to further investigate potential violations or undertake appropriate remedial 

actions, which actions shall be approved by the City Council. 

-4- 

CC_08092012 


EXHIBIT A 

REIMBURSEMENT BOND SUMMARY 

Following is a general summary of the requirements relating to bonds that are issued to 

reimburse expenditures that were paid prior to the date of issuance of bonds 

(“Reimbursement Bonds”). 

Reimbursement Bond proceeds cannot be used to reimburse expenditures paid more than 

60 days prior to the adoption of the declaration of official intent/reimbursement 

resolution, which must contain: 

� a general functional description of the property to which the reimbursement 

relates or an identification of the fund or account from which the expenditure is to 

be paid and a general functional description of the purposes of such fund or 

account; and 

� the maximum principal amount of debt to be issued. 

. 

Reimbursement Bonds must be issued not later than 18 months after the later of (i) the 

date on which the original expenditure is paid, or (ii) the date on which the property is 

placed in service, but in any case not more than three years after the date on which the 

original expenditure is paid. If possible, actual reimbursement should be made within 30 

days of the date of issuance of the Reimbursement Bonds. 

Note that there are exceptions for “de minimis” amounts (not in excess of the lesser of 

$100,000 or 5% of proceeds of the issue) and for “preliminary expenditures” (such as 

architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing and similar costs and costs of issuance), 

so long as such preliminary expenditures do not exceed 20% of the aggregate issue price. 

A-1 

CC_08092012 


Background 

EXHIBIT B 

SUMMARY OF REVENUE PROCEDURE 97-13 

A management, service or incentive payment contract with a private service 

provider with respect to tax exempt bond-financed property may result in private business 

use of that property, based on all facts and circumstances. None of the compensation 

may be based on a share of net profits. 

Revenue Procedure 97-13 establishes conditions under which a management 

contract generally does not result in private business use. Issuers and bond counsel 

typically attempt to satisfy, or substantially satisfy, one of these “safe harbors” because of 

uncertainty as to the treatment of nonconforming contracts. Below is a brief summary of 

the provisions of Rev. Proc. 93-17, as modified by Rev. Proc. 2001-39. 

Rev. Proc. 93-17 establishes conditions based on (1) the compensation 

arrangements and the term of the agreement, and (2) whether the service provider has any 

role or relationship with the “qualified user” 1 that substantially limits the qualified user’s 

ability to exercise its rights under the contract. 

General Rules 

In all events, the contract must provide for reasonable compensation for services 

rendered, with no compensation based, in whole or in part, on a share of net profits from 

the operation of the facility. Reimbursement of the service provider for actual and direct 

expenses paid by the service provider to unrelated parties is not by itself treated as 

compensation. 

The compensation, with the percentage determined by the term of the contract, 

subject to additional conditions, as described under “Compensation Safe Harbors” below, 

generally may be computed by: 

time 2 ; 

(A) a periodic fixed fee, which is a stated dollar amount for a specified period of 

(B) a percentage fee, which is a percentage of gross revenues (or adjusted gross 

revenues) of the facility or a percentage of expenses of the facility, but not both; 

(C) a capitation fee, which is a fixed periodic amount for each person for whom 

the service provider or the qualified user assumes the responsibility to provide all needed 

1 A “qualified user” of the financed property is a state or local governmental unit (or instrumentality 

thereof) or a 501(c)(3) organization if the financed property is not used in an unrelated trade or business 

under section 513(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

2 A periodic fixed fee may include an automatic increase based on a specific, objective, external standard 

that is not linked to the output or efficiency of the facility in question. 

B-1 

CC_08092012 


services for a specified period so long as the quantity and type of services actually 

provided to covered persons varies substantially 3 ; 

(D) a per-unit fee, which is a fee based on a unit of service specified in the 

contract or otherwise specifically determined by an independent third party or the 

qualified user 4 ; or 

(E) a productivity reward equal to a stated dollar amount based on increases or 

decreases in gross revenues (or adjusted gross revenues), or reductions in total expenses 

(but not both increases in gross revenues (or adjusted gross revenues) and reductions in 

total expenses) in any annual period during the term of the contract. 

The service provider must not have any role or relationship with the qualified user 

that, in effect, substantially limits the qualified user’s ability to exercise its rights, 

including cancellation rights, under the contract based on all facts and circumstances. 

The relationship does not limit the qualified user’s ability to exercise its rights if the 

following conditions are satisfied: (1) not more than 20 percent of the voting power of the 

governing body of the qualified user in the aggregate is vested in the service provider and 

its directors, officers, shareholders, and employees, (2) overlapping board members do 

not include the chief executive officers of the service provider or its governing body or 

the qualified user or its governing body, and (3) the qualified user and the service 

provider are not related parties. 

COMPENSATION SAFE HARBORS 

A management contract generally will not result in private business use if the 

compensation arrangement meets the criteria in one of the following categories: 

50% Periodic Fixed Fee Contracts 

� At least 50 percent of the compensation for services for each annual period during 

the term of the contract is based on a periodic fixed fee; 

� the term of the contract, including all renewal options 5 in favor of the service 

provider, does not exceed 5 years; and 

3 A capitation fee may include an automatic increase based on a specified, objective, external standard that is 

not linked to the output or efficiency of the facility. A capitation fee may also include a variable 

component of up to 20 percent of the total capitation fee designed to protect the service provider against 

risks such as catastrophic loss. 

4 A periodic fee may include an automatic increase based on a specified, objective, external standard that is 

not linked to the output or efficiency of the facility. 

5 A provision under which a contract is automatically renewed absent cancellation by either party is not a 

renewal option (even if it is expected to be renewed). 

B-2 

CC_08092012 


� the contract is terminable by the qualified user of the facility on reasonable notice, 

without penalty or cause, at the end of the third year of the contract term. 



the term of the contract is based on a periodic fixed fee; and 

� the term of the contract, including all renewal options in favor of the service 

provider, does not exceed the lesser of 80 percent of the reasonably expected 

useful life of the financed property and 10 years. 

For purposes of this safe harbor (but not the 50% periodic fixed fee safe harbor), a 

one-time incentive award during the term of the contract under which compensation 

automatically increases by a single, stated dollar amount when a gross revenue or 

expense target (but not both) is reached may be considered part of a fixed fee 

arrangement. 



the term of the contract is based on a periodic fixed fee; and 


provider, does not exceed the lesser of 80 percent of the reasonably expected 

useful life of the financed property and 15 years. 

For purposes of this safe harbor (but not the 50% periodic fixed fee safe harbor), a 

one-time incentive award during the term of the contract under which compensation 

automatically increases by a single, stated dollar amount when a gross revenue or 

expense target (but not both) is reached may be considered part of a fixed fee 

arrangement. 

Capitation Fee Contracts (with or without fixed fees) 

� All of the compensation for services is based on a capitation fee or a combination 

of a capitation fee and a periodic fixed fee; 




without penalty or cause, at the end of the third year of the contract term. 

Per-unit Fee Contracts (with or without fixed fees) 

� All of the compensation for services is based on a per-unit fee or a combination of 

a per-unit fee and a periodic fixed fee; 

B-3 

CC_08092012 





without penalty or cause, at the end of the second year of the contract term. 

Percentage of Revenue or Expenses 

� All the compensation for services is based on a percentage of fees charged or a 

combination of a per-unit fee and a percentage of revenue or expense fee; 




without penalty or cause, at the end of the first year of the contract term. 

During the start-up period, however, compensation may be based on a percentage 

of either gross revenues, adjusted gross revenues, or expenses of a facility. The contract 

must be terminable by the qualified user on reasonable notice, without penalty or cause, 

at the end of the first year of the contract term. This safe harbor applies only to contracts 

under which the service provider primarily provides services to third parties and 

management contracts involving a facility during an initial start-up period for which there 

have been insufficient operations to establish a reasonable estimate of the amount of the 

annual gross revenues and expenses (for example, a contract for general management 

services for the first year of operations). 

Revision of Compensation Arrangements 

Please note that if the compensation arrangements of a management contract are 

materially revised, the compensation arrangements are “retested” as of the date of the 

material revision, and the management contract is treated as one that was newly entered 

into as of the date of the material revision. 

B-4 

CC_08092012 


EXHIBIT C 

REMEDIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO BONDS 

The Issuer acknowledges that any deliberate action by the Issuer after Bond issuance that results 

in a satisfaction of the private business tests or the private loan test will result in private activity 

bond status unless one or more qualifying remedial actions are taken by the Issuer. Specifically, 

Treasury Regulations provide that actions are not treated as deliberate actions if (A) five 

conditional requirements are met, and (B) one of three remedial actions is taken, with respect to 

the disposition proceeds and nonqualified bonds � : 

CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

1. Reasonable Expectations – The issuer reasonably expected on the issue date that it would 

not meet the private business tests or the private loan test for the whole term of the bonds; 

and 

2. Reasonable Bond Maturity – The term of the issue must not be unreasonably long; this 

requirement is met if the weighted average maturity of the bond issue is not greater than 

120% of the expected economic life of the property financed; and 

3. Fair Market Value Consideration – The terms of any agreement (relating to satisfaction 

of a private activity bond test) must be bona fide and at arm’s-length, and the new user 

must pay a fair market value consideration for the use of the bond-financed property; and 

4. Disposition Proceeds Are Gross Proceeds – The Issuer must treat any disposition 

proceeds as gross proceeds subject to arbitrage/rebate restrictions; and 

5. Proceeds Spent for Authorized Purpose – Except as described with respect to redemption 

and defeasance options below, prior to deliberate actions, the affected proceeds must 

have been spent for the authorized purposes under the applicable bond documents. 

REMEDIAL ACTIONS – Under Treasury Regulations, Sections 1.141-12(d), (e) and (f): 

1. Redemption of Non-Qualified Bonds – Under the general rule, all nonqualified bonds of 

the issue must be redeemed. Tax-exempt bond proceeds (i.e., refunding bond proceeds) 

cannot be used unless the tax-exempt bonds are qualified bonds, taking into account the 

purchaser’s use of the facility. The bonds must be redeemed within 90 days of the date of 

the deliberate action or a defeasance escrow for the bonds must be established within 

such 90-day period. Special rules apply to transfers exclusively for cash and to 

defeasance escrows. 

� The portion of the outstanding bonds in an amount that, if the remaining bonds were issued on the date on 

which the deliberate action occurs, the remaining bonds would not satisfy the private business use test or the 

private loan financing test, as applicable. The amount of private business use is the highest percentage of 

business use in any one-year period, commencing with the deliberate action 

C-1 

CC_08092012 


2. Alternative Use of Disposition Proceeds – To meet this requirement, all disposition 

proceeds must be in cash, the issuer must reasonably expect to expend the proceeds 

within 2 years, the new use must not meet the private business tests or the private loan 

test (and the issuer cannot take any action subsequent to the date of the deliberate action 

to cause the tests to be met), and any unused proceeds must satisfy the redemption 

requirement in the preceding paragraph. 

3. Alternative Use of Facility – This remedial action is satisfied if the bond-financed 

property itself (as distinguished from the proceeds of the issue) is used in an alternative 

manner (e.g., for a different purpose or by a different person); the nonqualified bonds are 

treated as reissued on the date of the deliberate action and independently meet all of the 

requirements for tax exemption under Sections 141 through 150 of the Code, except the 

arbitrage and rebate rules of Section 148, for the remaining term of the nonqualified 

bonds; the deliberate action does not involve a transfer of the property to a purchaser that 

finances the acquisition with the proceeds of another issue of tax-exempt bonds; and any 

disposition proceeds, other than those arising from an agreement to provide services, 

resulting from the deliberate action are used to pay debt service on the bonds on the next 

available payment date or escrowed within 90 days of receipt and yield restricted to pay 

debt service on the next available payment date. 

The above is only a brief summary of remedial actions, and additional special rules may 

be applicable. As provided in the Issuer’s Compliance Procedures for Tax-Exempt Bonds, the 

Finance Manager shall seek advice of Bond Counsel as necessary to provide guidance as to 

“remedial action” that may be required under the applicable Treasury Regulations. 

The Commissioner of the IRS may, by publication, provide for additional remedial 

actions. In addition, the IRS provides a program in which issuers/borrowers which cannot meet 

a listed remedial action can enter into a closing agreement with the IRS to avoid private activity 

bond status. The closing agreement program includes several conditions, including providing for 

the redemption of the bonds and paying the IRS an amount based on an assumption that the nonqualified 

bonds are taxable from the date of the subsequent act until they are redeemed. 

C-2 

CC_08092012 


RESOLUTION NO. 

RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF AN 

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE 

WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER 

THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wayzata, 

Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: 

1. Recitals. 

(a) The United States Department of Treasury has promulgated final 

regulations governing the use of proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to 

be used to reimburse the City for project expenditures paid by the City prior to the date of 

issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the 

“Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original 

expenditure not later than 60 days after payment of the original expenditure. 

(b) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with respect to 

expenditures to be made by the City for the replacement of the sanitary sewer main on Superior 

Blvd, north of Rice Street, and on Circle A Drive with a larger sized pipe, in order to handle 

future flows from the Wayzata Bay Center site (the “Project”). 

2. Official Intent Declaration. The City proposes to make a payment 

from funds of the City to pay certain costs of the Project. The City reasonably expects to 

reimburse such expenditure out of the proceeds of improvement bonds to be issued by the City 

pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, in an estimated maximum aggregate 

principal amount of $580,000 (the “Improvement Bonds”) after the date the payment of such 

expenditures are made by the City. 

3. Budgetary Matters. As of the date hereof, there are no City finds 

reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be 

reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing 

for the payment of the cost of the Project, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Improvement 

Bonds. The statement of intent contained in this resolution, therefore, is determined to be 

consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are reasonably 

foreseeable on the date hereof. 


CC_08092012 


ATTEST: 




Seconded by: 



Abstained: 

Absent: 






T:\Administrative\2012 Meetings\CITY COUNCIL\08092012\Reimburse Resol - Circle A Project.doc 

2 

CC_08092012 


ORDINANCE NO. ______ 

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE 

OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 

THE CITY OF WAYZATA ORDAINS: 

Section 1. General Obligation Bonds. 

By authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Section 45 of the City 

Charter, the City may issue its general obligation bonds without an election, if such bonds are 

authorized by ordinance adopted by 4/5ths of the members of this Council for any purpose 

authorized by the laws of the State of Minnesota, when such laws permit the issuance of bonds 

for such purpose without an election. It is hereby determined to be necessary and desirable for 

the City to issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, in one or more series (the 

“Improvement Bonds”), and its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds (the 

“Refunding Bonds”), without an election. The Improvement Bonds are being issue for the 

purpose of financing street and water system improvements in the in the Holdridge area of the 

City, and financing the replacement of the sanitary sewer main on Superior Blvd, north of Rice 

Street, and on Circle A Drive with a larger sized pipe, in order to handle future flows from the 

Wayzata Bay Center site. The Refunding Bonds are being issued for the purpose of refunding 

the City’s outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004A. The maximum amount of the 

Improvement Bonds is $2,130,000 and the maximum amount of the Refunding Bonds is 

$2,000,000. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, the Improvement Bonds 

may be issued without an election, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the 

Refunding Bonds may be issued without an election 

Section 2. Further Terms and Provisions of Bonds Herein Authorized. 

The further terms and provisions of the Bonds, including the form and details 

thereof, shall be fixed and established by further resolution or resolutions of the City Council. 

Section 3. Effective Date. 

This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by this Council, after its second 

reading, and its publication in accordance with Sections 23 and 24 of the City Charter. 

CC_08092012 


Passed first reading, ____________, 2012. 

Passed and approved on second reading, _______________, 2012. 

Attest: __________________________ 

City Manager 

Approved: 

____________________________________ 

Mayor 

2 

CC_08092012 


CITY OF WAYZATA 

RESOLUTION NO. ___-2012 

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL 

OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2012A, 2012B AND 2012C 

BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Wayzata, Minnesota (the City), as follows: 

Section 1. Purpose. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City 

to (i) issue its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2012A (the “Series 2012A Bonds”), pursuant to 

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, without an election for the purpose of refunding the City’s 

outstanding General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004A, (ii) issue its General Obligation Bonds, 

Series 2012B (the “Series 2012B Bonds”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 

475, without an election for the purpose of financing street and water system improvements in 

the in the Holdridge area of the City, and (iii) issue its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2012C 

(the “Series 2012C Bonds”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, without an 

election for the purpose of financing the replacement of the sanitary sewer main on Superior 

Blvd, north of Rice Street, and on Circle A Drive with a larger sized pipe, in order to handle 

future flows from the Wayzata Bay Center site 

Section 2. Solicitation of Bids Public Financial Management, Inc., as 

independent financial advisers, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, 

paragraph (9) is hereby authorized to solicit bids for the Series 2012A Bonds, the Series 2012B 

Bonds and the Series 2012C Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. 


ATTEST: 




Seconded by: 




T:\Administrative\2012 Meetings\CITY COUNCIL\08092012\Wayzata-2012 GO Bonds Resolution Calling Sale.doc 

CC_08092012 


Abstained: 

Absent: 





T:\Administrative\2012 Meetings\CITY COUNCIL\08092012\Wayzata-2012 GO Bonds Resolution Calling Sale.doc 

2 

CC_08092012 



PUBLIC WORKS 

To: Wayzata City Council 

From: Dave Dudinsky, Director of Public Service 

Date: 8/2/2012 

Re: Consider Proposal for Sewer Rate Study 

The City hired Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc (PCE) to perform a water rate study 

in January of 2012. The water study recommendations were adopted at the July 17 th 

council meeting. 

I would like the Council to consider hiring the same consultant to complete a sewer rate 

study for the City. The sewer rate study can be completed for about $10,000 less than the 

cost of the water rate study because most of the data accumulated for the water rate study 

can be used in the sewer rate study. 

Additionally, by completing the sewer rate study yet this year, the study can take into 

account any impacts of the just adopted water rates for 2013. 

We do not have this study budgeted in our Sewer CIP but recommend we add this project 

to the current 2012 CIP program. The study can be completed within the next two months 

or so at a cost not to exceed of $12000. If council approves the sewer rate study, then 

both new water and sewer rates can be implemented starting next January. 

A copy of the (PCE) proposal in attached for your review. 

WAYZATA PUBLIC WORKS 

299 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 

(P) 952-404-5360 - (F) 952-404-9417 

PAGE 1 

CC_08092012 


CC_08092012 



PUBLIC WORKS 

To: Wayzata City Council 

From: Dave Dudinsky, Director of Public Service 

Date: 8/2/2012 

Re: Consider Proposal for the Rehabilitation of Sewer Lift Station #8 located 

at 302 Margaret Circle. 

The City Utility Department operates and maintains 23 sewer lift stations within the City 

limits. On average, each lift station is upgraded about every 20 years. 

ISSUE: Tolerances between the volute and impellors of the existing pumps at the 

Margaret Circle lift station has increased over the working life/age of the pumps and is 

now creating failures of the pumps on a weekly basis. After hour and weekend callouts 

are getting numerous and expensive. Therefore it’s my recommendation to move up the 

rehabilitation of the lift station programmed in the Sewer CIP from 2015 to 2012. 

The estimated cost for the rehabilitation in 2015 was $129,800. Since we now see need to 

do the rehabilitation earlier than we expected, we have had the project engineered and 

propose that we take on doing as much of rehabilitation that we can in house. By doing 

this, we estimate we can complete the total rehabilitation for about $60,000. 

Staff Recommends the Rehabilitation of Lift Station #8 in 2012 estimated at $60,000. 

WAYZATA PUBLIC WORKS 

299 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 

(P) 952-404-5360 - (F) 952-404-9417 

PAGE 1 

CC_08092012 


Plymouth 

Orono 

Minnetonka 

^ 

Minnetonka 

Wayzata Bay 

Browns Bay 

Grays Bay 

Source: 

City of Wayzata 

Prepared By: 

City of Wayzata 

. 

CC_08092012 

Page 43 of 176 

TCF Bank Project Design, CUP, Variance 

1101 Wayzata Blvd E. 

City Council, August 9, 2012

File Case No: PR 2012-6 

Applicant: TCF Bank 

Planning Report 

Wayzata City Council 

Thursday, August 9, 2012 

Address of Request: 1101 Wayzata Blvd E. 

Prepared By: Bryan Gadow, City Planner 

Requests: 1. Design Standards Review 

2. Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru Banking 

Facility 

3. Variance for Stacking Distance for Drive-Thru Bank 

Project Summary: The proposed project would redevelop the former 

Blockbuster building (1101 Wayzata Blvd) into a smaller 

banking facility with a drive-thru window for TCF Bank. 

Section 1. Background 

1.1 Development Application. TCF Bank (the “Applicant”) has submitted a development 

application (the “Application”) requesting approval of a design standards review (the 

“Project Design”), a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru banking facility (the 

“Drive-Thru CUP”), and a variance for the number of car stacking for the drive-thru 

facility (the “Variance”) to construct a new 2,700 SF bank with three (3) drive-thru lanes 

(the “Project”) at 1101 Wayzata Blvd E. (the “Property”). 

1.2 Property Background. The existing Property consists of a single story commercial 

building, which previous held the Blockbuster Video store since the 1990s, and was 

Minnesota Federal Bank and Norwest Bank prior to Blockbuster, starting in the late 

1960s. The total land area for the Property is 17,859 SF or 0.41 acres. The current 

zoning of the Property is C-2, Shopping Center Business District, and is guided for 

Mixed Use Commercial Use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Property is adjacent to the 

Colonial Square Shopping Center, and has a joint easement with that property for 

shared parking. 

CC_08092012 



Design Review, Drive-Thru CUP, and Variance 

Page 2 

Image 1.1: Photo of Existing Structure at 1101 Wayzata Blvd E. 

The site is primarily bordered by a mixture of commercial uses, with Anchor Bank to the 

west, the Colonial Shopping Center directly to the north and east, and Heritage Park to 

the south across Wayzata Blvd. 

A table including current land use and zoning of adjacent properties is as follows: 

Direction Land Use Zoning 

North Commercial (Colonial Square) C-2 

South C-3 Service and Park C-3 

East Commercial (Colonial Square) C-1 

West Commercial (Anchor Bank) PUD 

CC_08092012 




Page 3 

1.3 Legal Description. A copy of the legal description for the subject properties are on file 

and available for viewing at City Hall. The following properties (collectively the 

“Property”) are included in the project area of the Application: 

1101 Wayzata Blvd E. 05-117-22-23-0020 C & H Investment Co 

1.4 Public Noticing Requirements. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Sun 

Sailor on June 21, 2012. A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all 

property owners located within 350 feet of the subject property on June 22, 2012. 

Therefore, all public noticing requirements according to the Zoning Ordinance have been 

satisfied. 

1.5 Planning Commission Meeting Summary. The Planning Commission reviewed the 

Applicant and held a public hearing at their July 2, 2012 regular meeting. One (1) 

individual spoke in favor of the Application. The Planning Commission was generally in 

favor of the proposal, on the condition that a number of conditions of approval were met 

relating to some design modifications and additional landscaping. The Applicant has 

agreed to these conditions, and the revised plan sets based upon the Commission’s 

conditions are included as Attachment B-1. The Planning Commission voted four (4) in 

favor, zero (0) opposed (with three (3) Commissioners absent and excused) to direct 

staff to draft a Report and Recommendation for approval of the Project with conditions. 

The Commission reviewed and formally adopted the Planning Commission Report and 

Recommendation on the Application at their July 16, 2012 meeting on a vote of four (4) 

in favor and zero (0) opposed, and two (2) abstaining due to excused absence at the 

previous meeting. A copy of the Planning Commission Report and Recommendation is 

included as Attachment H, and the minutes from the July 2, 2012 meeting are included 

as Attachment F. A draft resolution based upon the Commission’s recommendation is 

included as Attachment I. 

1.6 Project Narrative. The proposed Project is to take the existing Blockbuster building, and 

reduce its area in about half. The remainder of the building would be remodeled and 

reface with new material. The proposed building would be a one (1) story building of 

approximately twenty one (21) ft to the top of the entrance tower, and would have a 

building footprint of 2,700 SF. 

1.7 Parking Calculations. As stated in the Application, parking is proposed within a surface 

parking lot with twelve (12) parking stalls on the property. Based on the calculations 

below, the Applicant meets the required number of parking spaces under Section 

801.20. 

Parking Calculations: 

Use Code Requirement Number Required 

Bank Facility 2700 SF/350SF = 7.7 stalls 8 stalls + 3 stalls for drive-thru 

facility 

Project Parking Provided 12 stalls 

CC_08092012 




Page 4 

1.8 Variance. Section 801.76.5.C requires that for drive-thru service windows, there must 

be one hundred eighty (180) feet of segregated automobile stacking lane(s). Because of 

the current size and configuration of the Property, the Applicant would not be able to 

meet the 180 ft on segregated stacking on the 1101 Wayzata Blvd property for any of 

the three drive-thru lanes proposed. The proposal would include 114.6 ft (Lane 1), 111.6 

ft (Lane 2), and 106.6 ft (Lane 3) of segregated stacking on the 1101 Wayzata Blvd 

property, with access to the stacking coming from adjacent property (Colonial Square), 

which the Applicant has access easement rights. The Applicant is requesting a variance 

from this section to have the 114.6 ft, 111.6 ft, and 106.6 ft, respectively, of stacking 

length rather than the 180 ft that is required under code. 

1.9 Traffic Study. As required for the drive-thru CUP component of their application, the 

Applicant has provided a traffic study by Spack Consulting of the 1101 Wayzata Blvd 

and 1125 Wayzata properties based upon the proposed drive-thru bank facility 

(Attachment C). The Applicant’s traffic analysis indicates that the peak demand of the 

2,700 SF bank building and drive-thru use is eight (8) vehicles, but the site provides 

adequate stacking (or queuing area) for up to sixteen (16) vehicles, meeting the traffic 

needs of the site. The site would also provide twelve (12) parking spaces on the 

property. In addition, the Applicant’s traffic study indicates that when reviewing both the 

1101 Wayzata Blvd and 1125 Wayzata Blvd (Colonial Square site) as a whole during 

peak demand times, there is sufficient parking for the proposed drive-thru use. The 

City’s traffic consultant, SRF Consulting, was reviewed the Applicant’s traffic study and 

verified the peak parking demand of the drive-thru banking use is 16 (sixteen) vehicles, 

and the peak drive-thru demand is eight (8) vehicles (Attachment D). 

In addition, the Hennepin County Transportation Department reviewed the proposed site 

plan and queuing lanes and indicated their belief that the traffic or queues would not 

cause any operational concerns for the county road (Central Ave N). 

1.10 Shared Access Easement. 

The 1101 Wayzata Blvd property and the 1125 Wayzata Blvd property (Colonial Square) 

have an egress and ingress easement agreement, and parking easement agreement, 

agreed to in 1993 (Attachment E). The easement agreement allows the 1101 Wayzata 

Blvd property to utilize the Colonial Square property and roadways for access to the 

1101 Wayzata Blvd property and parking. The City of Wayzata is not a party to this 

easement agreement, as it is between two private property owners. As a condition of 

any approval, staff recommends that the Applicant be required to provide evidence to 

the City Attorney that the egress and ingress, and parking easements are in full force 

and effect for the duration of this project. 

Section 2. Standards 

2.1 Design Standards. The design of all new buildings and exterior improvements to the 

public side of nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings in Wayzata which clearly alter 

the appearance of a structure are subject to the review and approval of the Wayzata 

Planning Commission and City Council. City Code Section 801.09; Wayzata Design 

CC_08092012 




Page 5 

Standards Section 1.5. The relevant design criteria for the “Wayzata Blvd District” are 

as reflected in the Design Critique attached to this Report as Attachment A. 

Based upon Staff’s review of the proposed design, there would be two (2) deviations 

requested from the design standards for this project: 

1. Section 801.09.8.4 – Percentage of Façade Transparency – 50% windows on 

Wayzata Blvd 

2. Section 801.09.11.1.G – Percent of Accent Materials – More than 10% steel on 

building facades 

The Planning Commission should discuss the requested deviations as part of their 

review of the Project Design. 

2.2 Drive-Thru Conditional Use Permit in C-2 District. (Section 801.76.5.C) 

Drive-in facilities for banks, or savings and loan associations provided that: 

a. Compatibility. The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, and 

functional plan of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the existing nearby 

commercial and residential buildings, and shall not cause impairment in property 

values, or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the site. 

b. Vehicle Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of 

conflict with through traffic movements. 

c. Surfacing. The entire area other than that portion occupied by buildings or structures 

or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage 

and which is subject to the approval of the City. 

d. Drive-through Windows. Service windows shall be allowed if the following additional 

criteria are satisfied: 

i. Stacking. Not less than one hundred eighty (180) feet of segregated 

automobile stacking lane(s) must be provided for the service window. 

ii. Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control 

traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and green area on the 

site. 

iii. Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for 

stacking of automobiles. 

iv. Noise. The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window shall be 

designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and 

communication noises, emissions, and headlight glare upon adjacent 

premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability 

of vehicles on the site. Levels of noise, light, and air quality shall occur and 

be measured at property lines and shall satisfy established state regulations. 

v. Hours. Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize the 

effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any existing 

neighboring residential uses. 

CC_08092012 




Page 6 

vi. Green Strip. At any common boundary shared with a residential district, a 

strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened so as to 

create an effective visual and sound buffer and separation of uses. 

vii. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered and 

satisfactorily met. 

In addition to the above conditions, the provisions of Section 801.04.2.F must 

considered and satisfactorily met. Section 801.04.2.F requires City Council to consider 

possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Their judgment shall be based 

upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 

1. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the 

official City Comprehensive Plan. 

2. The proposed use’s compatibility with present and future uses of the area. 

3. The proposed use’s conformity with all performance standards contained herein 

(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 

4. The propose use’s effect on the area in which it is proposed. 

5. The proposed use’s impact upon property values in the area in which it is 

developed. 

6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is in relation to capabilities of streets 

serving the property. 

7. The proposed use’s impact upon existing public services and facilities including 

parks, schools, streets and utilities, and the City’s service capacity. 

2.3 Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357, Subd. 6 (Variance Statute) 

On May 5, 2011, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6 was amended to 

significantly change the standards under which cities consider variance requests. This 

state law change supersedes the standards presently found in Wayzata’s Zoning 

Ordinance and until such is amended to reflect the state law changes, the state law 

should be followed to the extent it differs from Wayzata’s Zoning Ordinance. The 

amended Section 462.357, Subd. 6., provides the following items for evaluating variance 

requests: 

1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general 

purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with 

the comprehensive plan. 

2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that 

there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 

CC_08092012 




Page 7 

3. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 

means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable 

manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. 

4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and 

not created by the landowner. 

5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 

6. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 

7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct 

sunlight for solar energy. 

8. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in 

granting the variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a 

rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 

In evaluating a variance application, the Planning Commission and City Council shall 

make findings of fact on each of the above criteria in the state variance statute. 

2.4 Comprehensive Plan Guidance – Mixed Use Commercial 

The Property is guided for Mixed Use Commercial use in the City’s Comprehensive 

Plan. Mixed Use Commercial is described as: “These are commercial areas along 

Wayzata Blvd, Central Avenue, and the Bluff neighborhood (between Wayzata Blvd and 

Lake Street) that are almost exclusively retail and office use. The mixed use commercial 

category is intended to be a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses with an 

emphasis that commercial and office use but allowing for residential use when properly 

integrated”. The proposed banking facility with drive-thru use would meet this guidance 

in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, banking facilities are allowed uses in the 

corresponding C-2 Shopping Center District. 

Section 3. Summary of Issues 

3.1 Zoning. The Property is zoned C-2, Shopping Center District. In terms of 

permitted uses, a banking facility is a permitted use with the C-2 District. 

However, a drive-thru facility requires approval through the City’s CUP process, 

as described above. 

A summary of the C-2 Zoning Requirements is provided below for informational 

purposes. 

CC_08092012 




Page 8 

C-2 District Standards Proposal 

Minimum Lot Area 20,000 SF 17,859 SF (Existing 

Condition) 

Building Height 35 feet (midpoint of the 21 ft 

3.2 Design Review. A staff review of the applicable design criteria is included in the Design 

Critique, as Attachment A. The Application requires two (2) deviations from the design 

standards as discussed above and in Attachment A. 

3.3 Drive Thru Conditional Use Permit Review. 

roof) or 3 Stories 

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 0.15 

Setbacks 20 ft for all sides 38.9 ft ft front 

55.7 ft side (West) 

59.8 ft side (East) 

8.6 ft (rear) (Existing 

Condition 

Required Landscaping 20% of total lot area 20.8% 

The following is Staff’s evaluation of the criteria for a Drive-Thru CUP for the Project: 

a. Compatibility: The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, and 

functional plan of the building and site is not dissimilar to the existing nearby 

commercial buildings, as the proposed building is a smaller, one story building, with 

brick and other building materials. The project would remodel an older building on 

the site. There are other drive-thru banking facilities in the adjacent area, including 

at Anchor Bank (to the west of the Property), Wells Fargo Bank (to the west of the 

Property), and BMO Harris Bank (to the south and east of the Property). 

b. Vehicle Access: The vehicular access points shall be limited to only the existing curb 

cuts which service the existing site. The Applicant’s traffic report and the City’s 

review of the traffic report indicate that the proposed drive-thru layout would function 

without creating traffic impacts or conflicts with through traffic movements. 

c. Surfacing: The Project site is surfaced with grass and landscape materials and 

asphalt to control dust and drainage, in addition to erosion control measures. 

d. Drive-through Windows: A service window is proposed as part of the Project: 

i. Stacking: One hundred eighty (180) feet of segregated automobile stacking 

lane(s) is provided for each of the three drive-thru lanes. The Applicant’s 

traffic report and the City’s review of the traffic report indicate that the 

proposed layout provides adequate stacking area for eight (8) vehicles at 

peak demand time. 

ii. Traffic Control: The stacking lane and its access are designed to control 

traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and green area on the 

site. The stacking area for cars utilizing the drive-thru is located on the 

Property and is delineated. 

CC_08092012 




Page 9 

iii. Use of Street: No part of the public street or boulevard is used for stacking of 

automobiles. The stacking lane and site circulation occur on the property and 

the adjacent Colonial Square property. 

iv. Noise: The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window are located 

on the eastern side of the building under a covered overhang, which 

minimizes noise and light to adjacent properties. Future monitoring of noise 

and light from the drive-thru would be a condition of approval. 


effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any existing 

neighboring residential uses. This shall be a condition of approval. 

vi. Green Strip. The property does not have a common boundary shared with a 

residential district. However, the Project does propose additional landscaping 

around the public perimeter of the building at the Wayzata Blvd and Central 

Ave intersection. 

vii. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered and 

satisfactorily met. 

The following is Staff’s evaluation of the criteria for conditional use permits in Section 

801.04.2.F. 

1. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the 


The proposed use on the site is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, as 

the Property is guided for Mixed Use Commercial and Shopping Center zoning. 

The proposed bank use meets these criteria. 

2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future uses of the area. 

The proposed bank use is consistent with the present and future uses of the 

area. 

3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein 

(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 

The proposed use of the Project conforms with all performance standards in the 

C-2 District, with the exception of the 180 ft of stacking distance for the drive-thru 

on the Property itself. A variance for the stacking lane is included in the 

Application. Requested deviations from the Design Standards are discussed in 

Attachment A. 

4. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed. 

The remodeling and rehabilitation of the building and the landscaping would 

benefit the Wayzata Blvd District, due to the building’s high visibility. 

CC_08092012 




Page 10 

5. The proposed use's impact upon property values in the area in which it is 

developed. 

It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would have a negative impact on 

property values in the area. 

6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is in relation to capabilities of streets 


Per the Applicant’s traffic study, and the City’s review of the traffic study, the 

traffic generated by the proposed Project could be accommodated by the 

adjacent street network, and all parking would be either on the Property or the 

adjacent Colonial Square property, where a shared parking easement exists. 

7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including 

parks, schools, streets and utilities, and the City's service capacity. 

The proposed Project would not have a negative impact on public services, 

facilities or service capacity. 

3.4 Variance Criteria Analysis (Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357, Subd. 6). 

Pursuant to Minnesota Statue Section 462.357, Subd. 6, the Applicant is requesting the 

Variance from the 180 ft of segregated stacking requirement. Staff’s analysis of the 

review criteria is provided in the italicized text. 

1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general 



The Property is guided for Mixed Use Commercial use and zoned for Shopping 

Center uses. The proposed banking and drive-thru use is an allowed use with 

CUP in this District. 

2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that 


The Property’s lot size is smaller than the minimum for the C-2 Zoning District. 

Due to the existing configuration of the lot, the Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft 

to 114.6 ft of stacking distance on the Property for each of the lanes proposed. 

The Planning Commission and City Council should make a finding of fact on 

whether a practical difficulty exists on the Property. 

3. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 



The Property is currently guided and zoned for commercial use, and the 

Applicant desires to propose a new drive-thru banking facility. The Planning 

CC_08092012 




Page 11 

Commission and City Council should make a finding of fact on whether the 

Project meets the practical difficulties and reasonableness standard. 

4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and 


The Property is currently non-conforming as it relates to lot size. Due to the 

existing configuration of the lot, the Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft to 114.6 ft 

of stacking distance on the Property for each of the lanes proposed. The 

Planning Commission and City Council should make a finding of fact on whether 

the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the Property or 

owner actions. 

5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 


whether the Project would alter the essential character of the locality. 

6. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 


whether economic considerations are the sole reason for the practical difficulties. 

7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct 


Not applicable in this case, as the Applicant is not proposing solar energy. 

8. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in 



Any conditions attached to a potential approval motion shall be directly related to 

the Application. 

Section 4. Department Comments and Discussion Items 

4.1 Utility Superintendent: 

1. Water: The 1-1/4 water service to this building is in poor shape, and may need to be 

replaced. 

2. Sewer: The sewer service to existing building on N.E. corner to private sewer line out 

to CR 101 N. Needs to be televised to determine condition. 

4.2 City Engineer: 

1. Should examine the potential of a right-in-right out configuration onto Central Ave for 

channelization with both property owners. 

2. The existing water service must be abandoned at the main. 

3. Connection to the twelve inch (12”) water main is deep (approx. 12-15 ft). 

4.3 Parks Department: 

1. Need to follow proper tree protection measures. The tree contractor must be 

licensed in Wayzata. 

CC_08092012 




Page 12 

ACTION STEP: 

After considering the items outlined in this Report, the City Council should pursue one of the 

following options as an action step: 

1. Adopt the draft approval Resolution 35-2012 included as Attachment I of this 

Report. 

2. If the Council wishes to significantly modify the Resolution for approval, the 

Council should direct staff to prepare a revised Resolution for review and 

adoption at the next Council meeting. 

3. If the Council wishes to pursue a denial motion, the Council should direct staff to 

prepare a revised Resolution reflecting the denial motion for review and adoption 

at the next Council meeting. 

Attachments: 

� Attachment A: Design Critique 

� Attachment B: Applicant’s Submittals 

� Attachment B-1: Applicant’s Revised Submittals 

� Attachment C: Applicant’s Traffic Study 

� Attachment D: SRF Consulting Review of Applicant’s Traffic Study 

� Attachment E: Access Easement between 1101 Wayzata Blvd and 1125 Wayzata Blvd 

� Attachment F: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 2, 2012 

� Attachment G: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 16, 2012 

� Attachment H: Planning Commission Report and Recommendation 

� Attachment I: Resolution 35-2012 

CC_08092012 


1221 Wayzata Blvd E. – The Retreat 

Attachment A: Design Critique 

July 2, 2012 

Comments Compliance 

Yes. 

Yes. 

The existing design of the building 

includes brick that is recessed from the 

stucco, which provides visual dimensions 

and articulation to the building. 

The Property has landscaping proposed 

along the exterior of the building, and is 

adjacent to City landscaping elements on 

the corner of Wayzata Blvd and Central 

Ave. 

Building Recesses 

801.09.3.1.A – All Districts 

Building facades shall be articulated through the use of 

pilasters and/or recesses that create visible shadow lines 

and dimensions especially on the street level 

801.09.3.1.B 

Street level landscaped courtyards, outdoor seating areas 

and gathering areas shall be incorporated into building and 

site plan design. 

Not Applicable, 

however Project 

meets the 

requirements. 

This section is not applicable, as the 

Project is reutilizing a portion of an 

existing building. However, the Project 

does incorporate the following items: 

Building Width 

801.09.4.1 All Districts – New Buildings 

In order to reduce the scale of longer façades and to 

eliminate the long horizontal expressions of buildings, 

divisions or breaks in materials shall be included and at 

least three of the following design strategies shall be 

incorporated into the design: 

1. Parapet detailing 

2. Articulations of the façade, between 

stucco and brick elements 

3. Special treatment at the north 

entrance with the parapet element. 

1. Window bays 

2. Special treatment at entrances 

3. Variations in roof lines or parapet detailing 

4. Awnings 

5. Building setbacks or articulation of the facade 

6. Rhythm of elements 

CC_08092012 


1101 Wayzata Blvd E. – TCF Bank 


July 2, 2012 

Not Applicable. 

This section is not applicable as the 

Project is only a one story structure. 

Upper Story Setbacks 

801.09.5.1.A – All Districts – New Buildings 



Project is only a one story structure. 

Building height shall conform to the height of the 

applicable zoning district. Where three (3) story buildings 

are permitted, the third (3 rd ) story must be recessed from 

all façades fronting public right of ways at least a 

distance equal to the vertical distance of the 3 rd story 

height from the second (2 nd ) floor footprint, or an average 

of ten (10) feet across the facade, but no portion of the 

3 rd story structure shall be closer than six (6) feet to the 

2 nd story façade. The 3 rd story façade shall be designed 

with railings, pillars, dimensional windows, building 

recesses or other similar design techniques to break up 

the 3 rd story façade. 

801.09.5.1.B – All Districts – New Buildings 

Yes. 

The building height of the one story 

building is 21.4 ft to top of the entrance 

tower. Due to the setback distances to 

adjacent properties, there would be no 

negative impact due to building height. 

The façades fronting public right-of-ways of every two 

and three story building, longer than sixty (60) feet, must 

have a recessed second story of approximately twentyfive 

percent (25%) of the façade’s length, setting back a 

minimum of six (6) feet from the face of the first floor 

façade. The required third floor setback must follow the 

frontal plane of the second story setback. 

801.09.5.1.C – All Districts – New Buildings 

Wintertime sun orientation, solar access, and views of Lake 

Minnetonka are significant issues within the Design 

Districts. Building height should not negatively and 

significantly impact neighboring properties. 


The project proposes to maintain the 

existing flat roof. 

Roof Design 

801.09.6.1 – All Districts 

“Green” roofs, roof garden terraces, arbors and other similar 

structures are encouraged on roofs of building. 

2 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 

Yes. 

The proposed roof material for the flat 

roof will be a treated synthetic membrane 

material. 

801.09.6.2.A – All Districts – Roof Materials 

The roof material for all sloped roofs in all districts shall be 

slate, untreated copper, pre-finished metal, cedar shake or 

asphalt shingle in dark colors. 

801.09.6.2.B – All Districts – Roof Materials 

The roof material for all flat roofs in all districts shall be 

treated synthetic membrane or other similar material in dark 

colors. 

Yes. 

No mechanical equipment will be located 

on the roof deck. All mechanical 

equipment will be on ground level, 

screened by fencing in the sideyard (east 

side) of the building. 

Screening of Rooftop Equipment 

801.09.7.2 – Wayzata Blvd District 

All mechanical equipment shall be completely screened 

behind a parapet wall, so as not to be visible from 

adjacent properties and pedestrian view vantage points 

from adjacent sidewalks. No enclosure shall be larger 

than 25% of the roof area. 

. 

3 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


No, due to existing 

conditions. A 

deviation for this 

section would be 

appropriate for 

consideration. 

The West Façade of the building has 33% 

glass and the South Façade has 27% 

glass. 

Facade Transparency 

801.09.8.4 – Wayzata Blvd District 

No less than fifty percent (50%) of ground level façades for 

buildings containing commercial or office uses fronting 

Wayzata Blvd shall be transparent glass. 



building is not a multi-story building. 

Ground Level Expression 


In multi-story buildings, the ground floor shall be 

distinguished from the floors above by the use of at least 

three of the following elements: 

1. An intermediate cornice line 

2. A difference in building materials or detailing 

3. An offset in the façade 

4. An awning, trellis, or loggia 

5. Arcade 

6. Special window lintels 

7. Brick/stone corbels 

Yes. 

The entrance to the proposed drive-thru 

area will be landscaped with flowers and 

smaller trees. 

Entries 


The front facade of all buildings shall be landscaped with 

window boxes or planters with seasonally appropriate 

plantings. The main entries shall face the primary street 

at sidewalk grade. 

4 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 

Yes. 

The building is primarily of brick, stucco, 

metal, and glass with the following 

percentages: 

Total Building Façade SF: 3,457.3 SF 

West Elevation: 

Brick: 296.7 SF – 28% 

Stucco: 249.2 SF – 24% 

Glass: 339.6 SF – 33% 

Cast Stone Sills: 26 SF – 4% 

Metal Panels: 118.5 SF – 11% 

Overall: 1030 SF 

801.09.11.1.A – Primary Opaque Surfaces – All Districts 

Other than the accent materials listed in 801.09.11.G, 

ninety percent (90%) of the non-glass surfaces of each 

elevation of the exterior building façade shall be 

composed of one or more of the following materials: 

1. Brick 

2. Stone 

3. Cast stone 

4. Factory finished and certified wood, including, but 

not limited to: 

a. Wood shingles (cedar shingles six (6) inch 

maximum exposure) 

b. Lap-siding (six (6) inch maximum width) 

5. Stucco 

South Elevation: 

Brick: 260 SF – 31% 

Stucco: 231 SF – 27% 

Glass: 230 SF – 27% 

Cast Stone Sills: 17 SF – 2% 


Overall: 836.5 SF 

East Elevation: 

Brick: 493.1 – 61% 

Stucco: 201.9 – 25% 



North Elevation: 

Brick: 185.5 SF – 24% 

Stucco: 308 SF – 39% 

Glass: 98.3 SF – 12% 

Metal Parapet: 195.4 – 25% 


5 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 

Yes. 

Brick and Stucco are included on all four 

sides of the building. 

801.09.11.1.B – Façade Coverage – All Districts 

The primary opaque surface materials of all free standing 

buildings must be the same on all facades of the building. 

Yes. 

The brick will be full course brick of a 

standard size. 

801.09.11.1.C – Type of Brick – All Districts 

On all facades of a free-standing building where brick is 

used, full course modular, Roman, Norman or other 

standard size brick must be used. 

Yes. 

The brick proposed as a part of the 

Project will be full course brick. 

801.09.11.1.D – Façade Detail – All Districts 

1. Brick and/or stone façades shall be well detailed and 

dimensionally designed in order to avoid fractional 

cuts and odd pieces. All outside brick corners must 

be full bricks (custom if necessary), with no mitering, 

forming continuous vertical joints. 

2. The narrow face of an exposed stone butt joint, at 

corners, must be a minimum dimension of two (2) 

inches. Mitered and quirked stone corners are also 

acceptable. 

Yes. 

The mortar for the brick be standard grey 

to match the existing structure and will be 

assembled as required by code. 

801.09.11.1.E – Brick Joints – All Districts 

1. The mortar for brick must be dark grey or in the color 

range of the brick. All joints must be concave or ‘v’ 

joint. No mortar may be used beyond the face of the 

brick. 

2. All brick walls must be built to avoid efflorescence 


This section is not applicable, as no stone 

is proposed. 

801.09.11.1.F – Stone Joints – All Districts 

Stone joints shall be no larger than one-fourth (1/4) inch. 

6 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 

No. The Planning 

Commission and 

City Council should 

evaluate if a 

deviation is 

warranted. 

Cast stone is utilized as for the window 

sills, at 4% of the West elevation and 2% 

of South elevation. 

Steel panels are utilized for more than 

10% of the façades of the building. 

801.09.11.1.G – Accent Materials – All Districts 

Only the following materials may be used for lintels, sills, 

cornices, bases, and decorative accent trims, and must 

be no more than 10 percent (10%) of the non-glass 

surfaces of each elevation of the exterior building façade: 

The Applicant has 

indicated that if the 

amount of metal is a 

concern with the 

Project, they could 

replace it with glass 

to meet the 

standard. 

1. Stone 

2. Cast stone 

3. Copper (untreated) 

4. Rock faced stone 

5. Aluminum or painted steel structural shapes 

6. Fiber cement board 

7. Premium grade wood trim with mitered outside 

corners. Examples of premium grade wood are 

cedar, redwood, and fir. 

8. EIFS 

Yes. 

Aluminum with a maximum exposed edge 

of no more than five inches will be used 

as parapet material. 

801.09.11.1.H - Parapets, Flashing, Coping – All Districts 

1. Only the following materials may be used for 

parapets, flashing and coping: 

a. copper (untreated) 

b. brick 

c. stone 

d. cast stone 

e. premium grade wood. 

2. Pre-finished, painted .032 aluminum may only be 

used as a standard parapet coping with a maximum 

exposed edge of five (5) inches. 

7 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


This section is not applicable as there are 

no awnings proposed as part of the 

Project. 

801.09.11.1.I – Awnings – All Districts 

1. Only the following types of awnings may be used: 

a. Fabric awnings of a heavy canvas in dark solid 

colors or other colors that are approved as part of 

the design review process 

b. Highly detailed, ornate metal in dark colors 

c. Glass awnings 

2. Backlit awnings are prohibited. 

3. Awnings with text or graphic material may be 

permitted but require approval via the sign permit 

process of the Zoning Ordinance. 


This section is not applicable, as there 

are no balconies proposed. 

801.09.11.1.J – Balconies – All Districts 

Balconies shall be accessible and useable by persons. 

Fake or unusable balconies are prohibited. All balconies 

shall remain within the property line. Metal railings with 

members painted dark, or glass panels are permitted. 

Yes. 

The glass shall meet the standards of the 

ordinance. 

Yes. 

The proposed entry doors will be glass 

and bronze frames. 

801.09.11.1.K – Glass – All Districts 

Glass shall not be mirrored, reflective or darkened. Slight 

green, bronze and grey tints are acceptable. Spandrel 

glass shall not be counted as transparent glass for the 

purposes of calculations under the transparency 

requirements of Section 801.09.8 of the Standards, but 

may be used for detailing purposes. Environmentally 

appropriate glass, such as Low-emissivity glass, shall be 

used in all projects 

801.09.11.1.L – Doors – All Districts 

Unless there are building security concerns, main entry 

doors shall be primarily glass. If, for security reasons, a 

main entry door is not possible or practical, a main entry 

door must be well detailed. Appropriately designed wood 

doors may be utilized for retail and office buildings. 

8 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


Yes. 

The proposed building design is not of a 

standard franchise design for TCF Bank. 

The Project proposes to reutilize and 

remodel a portion of an existing building. 

Franchise Architecture 

801.09.12.1 

A. Typical or standardized franchise architecture 

(including building design that is the trade dress 

of, or identified with a particular chain, franchise or 

business and is repetitive in nature) is prohibited. 

B. Large, bold or bright signage, trade dress or logos 

must be altered and scaled down to meet the 

purpose of these standards as articulated herein, 

and must not be repeated on the facades of the 

principal structure more than once. All new, 

altered and/or proposed signage for buildings 

must be submitted for review under Section 801. 

09.18 by the Planning Commission at the time of 

Design Standards Review application 

Yes. 

Sidewalks exist on Wayzata Blvd and 

Central Avenue adjacent to the Project. 

Walkways 

801.09.13.2 – Bluff District 

A. Continuous sidewalks at least five (5) feet in width 

shall be provided along all public street frontages. 

The sidewalk street grid shall be maintained and 

extended wherever possible. 

B. Where the sidewalk street grid is interrupted by 

steep slopes or other topographic variations, 

walkways or stairways shall be built to maintain 

pedestrian continuity. 

9 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


Yes. The Planning 

Commission and 

City Council should 

comment on the 

plantings proposed 

for the Project. 

The Applicant has proposed landscaping 

around the perimeter of the building. 

Street lights and planters exist adjacent to 

the building on City right of way. 

Landscaping 


A. Seasonal landscaping shall be used in all Design 

Districts, including use of window boxes, hanging 

flowers baskets, vines and/or other similar 

seasonal landscaping. If feasible, garden areas 

and ornamental trees shall be used at the street 

level. 

B. Window boxes, hanging baskets and planters with 

seasonally appropriate plantings shall be used 

around entries to buildings. 

C. Vines shall be used to cover walls with more than 

one hundred (100) square feet of uninterrupted 

surface area. 

D. Streetscaping shall include all of the following: 

1. Boulevard species trees, with at least three (3) 

caliper inches. 

2. Exposed aggregate sidewalks with brick 

accents 

3. Street lights 

4. Benches (if building length is 50 feet or 

greater), which utilize existing city bench 

designs. 

5. Flowers 

Yes. 

The Applicant will be installing additional 

trees and landscaping around the 

entrance of the building. The Applicant 

will install 3 caliper inch trees as required. 

801.09.14.3 – Bluff and Wayzata Blvd Districts 

Trees with a minimum of three (3) caliper inches shall be 

planted no more than twenty-six (26) feet apart within a 

landscaped boulevard. 

10 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


Yes. 

The project proposes an approximately 

10 ft landscaped buffer of shrubbery 

between the building and the adjacent 

sidewalk to the south. 

Parking Lot Landscaping 


A landscaped buffer strip at least five (5) feet wide shall be 

provided between all parking areas and the sidewalk or 

street. The buffer strip shall consist of shade trees 

appropriately spaced for the particular Design District, and a 

decorative metal fence, masonry wall or hedge. A solid wall 

or dense hedge shall be no less than three (3) feet and no 

more than four (4) feet in height. 

Yes. 

The proposed parking area is in the 

interior (rear) of the site, away from the 

public facades on Wayzata Blvd and 

Central Avenue. 

Surface Parking 


A. Off-street parking shall be located to the rear of 

buildings. When parking must be located in a side 

yard adjacent to the street, a landscaped buffer 

shall be provided in accordance with the Design 

Standards. The street frontage occupied by 

parking shall not exceed sixty (60) feet per 

property. 

B. Side-by-side parking lots creating a parking area 

frontage longer than sixty (60) feet are prohibited, 

except where a heavily landscaped buffer of at 

least twenty (20) feet wide completely separates 

both lots. 

C. Side yard parking shall not extend beyond the 

front yard setback of the primary building on the 

property. 

D. Front yard parking is prohibited. 

E. There shall be no corner parking. 

11 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 

Compliance 


Comments 

Not applicable, as there is only 10 parking 

spaces. 

801.09.16.2 – All Districts – Bicycle Parking 

Commercial developments requiring more than twenty (20) 

parking spaces shall provide at least four (4) bicycle 

parking spaces in a convenient, visible, preferably sheltered 

location. 


This section is not applicable, as there is 

no parking ramp associated with the 

request. 

Parking Structures 


Parking structures shall meet the following standards, 

along with all other applicable building code standards: 

A. The ground floor façade abutting any public street 

or walkway shall be architecturally compatible with 

surrounding commercial or office buildings. 

B. The parking structure shall be designed in such a 

way that sloped floors do not dominate the 

appearance of the façade. 

C. Windows or openings shall be similar to those of 

surrounding buildings. 

D. Vines and other significant landscaping shall be 

used to minimize the visual impact of the parking 

structure. 

12 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


Yes. 

The Project proposed four (4) smaller, 18 

SF signs for a total of 72 SF of signage. 

The proposed signage would meet the 

sign code requirements. 

Signs 


A. Compatibility 

1. Signs shall be architecturally compatible with the 

style, composition, materials, colors and details 

of the building, and with other signs on nearby 

buildings. Signs shall be an integral part of the 

building and site design. 

2. A sign plan shall be developed for buildings 

which house more than one (1) business. Signs 

need not match, but shall be compatible with one 

another. Franchise or national chains must 

comply with these Sign Standards to create 

signs compatible with their context. 

3. When illuminated signs are proposed, only the 

text and/or logo portion of the sign may be 

illuminated. Illuminated signs must be 

compatible with the location. Illumination of the 

sign to highlight architectural details is permitted. 

Fixtures shall be small, shielded, and directed 

towards the sign rather than toward the street, 

so as to minimize glare for pedestrians and 

adjacent properties. 

4. Sign plans must be submitted for review as part 

of an Applicant for Design Approval. Proposed 

signs must also conform to the requirements of 

Section 801.27 of the Wayzata Zoning 

Ordinance. 

13 

CC_08092012 




July 2, 2012 


Yes. 

All lighting fixtures attached to the 

building are designed to be downcast lit. 

Parking Lot and Building Lighting 


A. Parking lot lighting shall be designed in such a way 

as to be in scale with its surroundings, and reduce 

glare. 

B. Cutoff fixtures shall be located below the mature 

height of trees located in parking lot islands so as to 

minimize ambient glow and light pollution. 

C. Pedestrian-scale lighting, not exceeding thirteen 

(13) feet in height, shall be located on walkways and 

adjacent to store entrances. All sidewalk lighting 

must be projected downwards. City light standard 

shall be followed for all public streets. 

D. Light posts shall be of a dark color. 

E. Lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the 

architecture of the building. 

F. Lights attached to buildings shall be screened by the 

building’s architectural features to eliminate glare to 

adjacent properties. All façade lighting must be 

projected downwards. 

G. All lighting fixtures shall comply with City Code 

Section 801.16.6 as it relates to glare. 

Deviations Requested with the Application 

� Section 801.09.8.4 – Percentage of Façade Transparency – 50% windows on Wayzata Blvd 

� Section 801.09.11.1.G – Percent of Accent Materials – More than 10% steel on building facades 

14 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

LEGEND 

EXISTING 

PROPOSED 

CENTRAL AVE. N. (CO. HWY. NO. 101) 

STANDARD DUTY 

ASPHALT PAVING 

CONCRETE PAVING 

PROPERTY LIMIT 

CURB & GUTTER 

EASEMENT 

BUILDING 

RETAINING WALL 

SIGN 

PIPE BOLLARD 

NUMBER OF PARKING 

STALLS PER ROW 

KEY NOTE 

Client 

HTG 

ARCHITECTS 

9300 Hennepin Town Raod 

Minneapolis, Mn. 55347 

10 STALLS 

DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 

PARKING PROVIDED 

Project 

TCF BANK 

DEVELOPMENT NOTES 

Location 

WAYZATA, MN 

A. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 

B. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 

C. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 

D. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF 

EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE 

LOCATIONS. 

E. REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS. 

F. ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE ARE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL 

SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). 

THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS ISLE SHALL BE 2.08% 

(1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA 

ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE 

ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE 

DESIGN GRADIENT. 

Certification 

I hereby certify that this plan, specification or 

report was prepared by me or under my direct 

supervision and that I am a duly licensed 

professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state 

of Minnesota. 

Brad C. Wilkening 

Registration No. 26908 Date: 05/18/2012 

If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this 

plan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc., 

Plymouth, MN office. 

PRELIMINARY 

KEY NOTES 

A. BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 

B. B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. 

C. 2' CURB CUT 

D. TRASH ENCLOSURE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 

E. DO NOT ENTER, EXIT ONLY SIGN. 

Summary 

Designed: BCW Drawn: DJD 

Approved: BCW Book / Page: XX/XX 

Phase: FINAL Initial Issue: 05/18/2012 

No. Date By Submittal / Revision 

Revision History 

F. H/C PARKING SIGN WITH BOLLARD. 

G. ACCESSIBLE RAMP 

H. PAVEMENT STRIPING 

I. PAVEMENT ARROW 

J. BUILDING CANOPY. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 

K. A.C. UNIT ENCLOSURE 

L. BUILDING COLUMN. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 

WAYZATA BLVD. E. (CO. HWY. NO. 101) 

Sheet Title 

SITE PLAN 

Sheet No. Revision 

C3.01 

FRONT VIEW 

F 

STREET VIEW 

E 

0 20 

SCALE IN FEET 

HTG19287 

Project No. 

Jul 10, 2012 - 10:35am - User:225 L:\PROJECTS\HTG19287\dwg\Civil\19287-C301-SITE.dwg 

CC_08092012 


�� 

SOD & MULCH LEGEND 

TYPE 

DOUBLE SHREDDED DARK 

HARDWOOD MULCH 

SOD HIGHLAND 

SYM. 

MATURE 

HEIGHT 

INSTALL 

HEIGHT 

KEY BOTANICAL NAME 

COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT QTY. 

DECIDUOUS TREES 

Acer saccharum SUGAR MAPLE 

2.5" BB 3 

LANDSCAPE LEGEND 

15' 50' 

STRAIT LEADER NO "V" CROTCH 

CENTRAL AVE. N. (CO. HWY. NO. 101) 

3 

BB 

Tilia americana 'Boulevard' BOULEVARD LINDEN 

15' 60' 

2.5" 

14' 55' 

4 

BB 

2.5" 

Celtis occidentalis HACKBERRY 

Client 

HTG 

ARCHITECTS 

9300 Hennepin Town Raod 

Minneapolis, Mn. 55347 

SHRUBS 

Ribes alpinum ALPINE CURRENT 

#5 CONT. 27 

1' 3'x4' 

Spiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA #5 CONT. 13 

1.5' 3'x4' 

Amelanchier alnifolia 'Regent' SERVICEBERRY 

#5 CONT. 0 

1' 3'x4' 

Spiraea x bumalda 'Gold Flame' GOLD FLAME SPIREA 

#5 CONT. 0 

1.5' 3'x4' 

PERENNIALS 

Hemerocallis 'Baja' BAJA DAYLILY #1 CONT. 34 

6" 2'x1.5' 

Hemerocallis 'Stella d'Oro' STELLA D'ORO DAYLILY #1 CONT. 52 

6" 1.5'x1.5' 

QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY 

QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 

Project 

TCF BANK 

PLANTING NOTES 

Location 

WAYZATA, MN 

Certification 

1. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL, FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE AND BE CONTAINER 17. USE ANTI-DESICCANT (WILTPRUF OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON DECIDUOUS PLANTS MOVED IN LEAF AND FOR 

GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS INDICATED IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. 

EVERGREENS MOVED ANYTIME. APPLY AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION. ALL EVERGREENS SHALL BE 

2. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. 

SPRAYED IN THE LATE FALL FOR WINTER PROTECTION DURING WARRANTY PERIOD. 

3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMED 

18. PLANTING SOIL FOR TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS: FERTILE FRIABLE LOAM CONTAINING A LIBERAL 

UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER INSTALLATION. 

AMOUNT OF HUMUS AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH. IT SHALL COMPLY WITH 

4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE 

MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3877 TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL. MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROM HARDPACK SUBSOIL, 

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 

STONES, CHEMICALS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, ETC. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 

5. ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK," ANSI-Z60, 

10-0-10 FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 3 POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD. IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATE THIS 

LATEST EDITION, OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, INC. AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM MIXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BED BY ROTOTILLING IT INTO THE TOP 12" OF SOIL. 

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIALS. 

19. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR TWO COMPLETE GROWING SEASONS (APRIL 1 - NOVEMBER 1), 

6. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE DRIP LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE GUARANTEE SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF REPLACEMENT INCLUDING 

TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF MATERIALS ETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING ADEQUATELY 

LABOR AND PLANTS. 

SUPPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING. 

20. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 3 DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNED DELIVERY. THE 

7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, SHAPES OF BEDS AND LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 

CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING 

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS AT SPACING SHOWN PLANT INSTALLATION. 

AND ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL 21. SEASONS/TIME OF PLANTING AND SODDING: 

APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 

NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO PLANT IN OFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT THE CONTRACTORS RISK. 

8. ALL TREES MUST BE PLANTED, MULCHED, AND STAKED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. 

DECIDUOUS POTTED PLANTS: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1 

9. ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED. 

DECIDUOUS B&B: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1 

10. HARDWOOD MULCH: SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, CLEAN AND FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS OR OTHER 

EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-OCT. 1 

DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, IN ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS AND FOR TREES, UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK MULCH 

EVERGREEN B&B: APRIL 1-MAY 15; AUG. 21-SEPT. 15 

ON DRAWINGS. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY ON-SITE FOR APPROVAL. 

SOD: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; JULY 20-SEPT. 20 

DELIVER MULCH ON DAY OF INSTALLATION. USE 4" FOR TREES, SHRUB BEDS, AND 3" FOR PERENNIAL/GROUND 22. MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THE WORK IS IN PLACE. PLANT 

COVER BEDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. HARDWOOD MULCH SHALL CONFORM TO MNDOT TYPE 5 OR MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS IS COMPLETE, 

TYPE 6 SPECIFICATIONS. 

INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND PLANTINGS ARE ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARANTEE. MAINTENANCE 

11. THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST. THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, CULTIVATING, MULCHING, REMOVAL OF DEAD MATERIALS, RE-SETTING PLANTS TO 

TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES. 

PROPER GRADE AND KEEPING PLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION. AFTER ACCEPTANCE, THE OWNER SHALL 

12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND PLANTING SOIL QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE TO BE 

THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN. VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. 

RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TREES PLUMB THOUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 

13. LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 

23. ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES, TURNS BROWN, OR DEFOLIATES (PRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE 

14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS, PLANTERS AND BUILDINGS CLEAN AND UNSTAINED. ALL 

WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPECIES, 

PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS TO BE MAINTANED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. ALL WASTES QUANTITY, AND SIZE AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND SPECIFICATIONS. 

SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ON DAY OF DELIVERY SHALL 24. WATERING: MAINTAIN A WATERING SCHEDULE WHICH WILL THOROUGHLY WATER ALL PLANTS ONCE A WEEK. 

BE HEELED IN AND WATERED UNTIL INSTALLATION. PLANTS NOT MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE 

IN EXTREMELY HOT, DRY WEATHER, WATER MORE OFTEN AS REQUIRED BY INDICATIONS OF HEAT STRESS 

REJECTED. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAVED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 

SUCH AS WILTING LEAVES. CHECK MOISTURE UNDER MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINE NEED. 

15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER. 

PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK. 

25. CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION. 

16. LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES, WITH THE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARY 26. PLANTING BED EDGER SHALL BE CLO-MET OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE. EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WHERE 

UTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454-0002 (TWIN CITIES METRO AREA) OR 800-252-1166 (GREATER PLANTING BEDS ARE ADJACENT TO SOD. 

MINNESOTA) 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND 27. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN BUILD, SUBMIT DRAWINGS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL. IRRIGATE ALL SOD WITH 

REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE EITHER SPRAYS OR ROTORS AT A MINIMUM DESIGN OF 1" PER WEEK. IRRIGATE ALL PLANTERS WITH A DRIP 

PLANT RELOCATION. 

STYLE SYSTEM AT .25" PER WEEK. INSTALL A TOTAL OF 2 QUICK COUPLERS AT THE CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY, 

SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 

PRELIMINARY 

Summary 

Designed: BCW Drawn: DJD 

Approved: BCW Book / Page: XX/XX 

Phase: FINAL Initial Issue: 05/18/2012 

NOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL 

BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING 

TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE 

DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE 

PERIOD 

GUY ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENE OR 

POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" WIDE 

STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. WIRE, 

2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS (MnDOT 3401) 

@ 180° O.C. (SEE STAKING DIAGRAM) 

No. Date By Submittal / Revision 

Revision History 

COORDINATE STAKING TO INSURE 

UNIFORM ORIENTATION OF GUY LINES 

AND STAKES. 

180° 

180° 

STAKING DIAGRAM 

TREE WRAP FROM BELOW MULCH LINE 

TO FIRST BRANCH OPTION 

PERFORATED SLIT PVC COLLAR 

4"-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCH 

EXISTING GRADE 

PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) 

MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL 

WAYZATA BLVD. E. (CO. 

4'-0" MIN 

3'-0" MIN 

1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR 

TO PLANTING 

2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR 

DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO 

NOT PAINT CUTS. SEE SPECS REGARDING 

PRUNING OF ALL OAKS. 

3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE 

SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 

BACKFILL SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE 

ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE 

FINISHED GRADE. 

4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH 

BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, 

(IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN 

APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF 

ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 

1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO 

HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS 

GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND 

NAILS FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. 

REMOVE ALL TWINE. 

5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL 

SOIL. 

6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL 

VOIDS. 

7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF 

INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE 

SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE 

ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. 

8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS 

OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS 

SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 

Sheet Title 

LANDSCAPE 

PLAN 

UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED 

SUBSOILS 

TREE/SHRUB/GROUND COVER 

2 MASS BED PLANTING DTL. 

L1.01 N.T.S. 

1 DECIDUOUS TREE DTL. 

L1.01 N.T.S. 

Sheet No. Revision 

L1.01 

0 20 

SCALE IN FEET 

HTG19287 

Project No. 

Jul 10, 2012 - 12:21pm - User:476 L:\PROJECTS\HTG19287\dwg\Civil\19287-L101-LAND.dwg 

CC_08092012 


�� 

Technical�Memorandum� 

To:� ��Mike�Kraft,�HTG�Architects� 

From:� ��Mike�Spack,�P.E.,�P.T.O.E.� 

Date:� ��May�21,�2012� 

Re:� ��Parking�Capacity�Study�for�1101�East�Wayzata�Boulevard�Redevelopment�� 

� TCF�Project�No.�12�099�9131� 

� 

In�2011,�C&H�Investment�Company�proposed�converting�the�Blockbuster�Building�at�1101�East� 

Wayzata� Boulevard� in� Wayzata,� Minnesota� to� a� coffee� shop,� hair� salon,� and� fast� casual� 

restaurant.��We�prepared�a�parking�study�to�determine�if�there�was�adequate�parking�at�the� 

shopping�center�to�accommodate�the�redevelopment.��That�redevelopment�did�not�occur�and� 

now�TCF�Bank�is�proposing�to�replace�the�Blockbuster�Building�with�a�2,700�square�foot�bank� 

with�three�drive�through�lanes�(preliminary�site�plan�attached).��The�purpose�of�this�study�is� 

to� update� the� 2011� parking� study� with� the� proposed� bank� use� and� also� to� determine� the� 

amount�of�stacking�room�needed�at�the�drive�through�lanes.� 

� 

Results� 

The�shopping�center�where�the�building�is�located�has�429�parking�stalls�for�employees�and� 

customers.��The�peak�parking�demand�of�the�proposed�bank�is�expected�to�be�16�vehicles,� 

while�the�peak�parking�demand�of�the�previously�proposed�redevelopment�was�73�vehicles.�� 

With� the� conversion� of� the� 1101� East� Wayzata� Boulevard� property� and� the� addition� of� a� 

Noodles�restaurant�being�built�within�the�Regency�portion�of�the�shopping�center,�the�peak� 

parking�demand�on�site�during�a�typical�weekday�is�forecast�to�be�314�parked�vehicles.��This� 

peak�parking�demand�will�occupy�approximately�73%�of�the�available�parking�stalls�(leaving� 

approximately� 27%� of� the� available� parking� unoccupied� at� the� peak).��There� is� adequate� 

parking�capacity�to�accommodate�the�proposed�redevelopment.�� 

� 

Based�on�our�study�of�bank�drive�through�lanes�in�the�Twin�Cities�(attached),�the�peak�queue� 

demand�at�the�bank’s�drive�through�is�expected�to�be�8�total�vehicles.��The�preliminary�site� 

plan� shows� stacking� room� for� 16� vehicles� in� the� drive� through� area� before� vehicles� start� 

stacking� into� the� parking� area.��There� is� adequate� stacking� room� in� the� proposed� drive� 

through�area.�� 

� 

Parking�Forecasts� 

The�parking�forecasts�were�prepared�by�collecting�existing�parking�usage�data�at�the�shopping� 

center� and� then� adding� the� forecast� parking� demand� for� the� proposed� condition� to� the� 

existing�parking�data.��To�collect�the�existing�parking�data;�the�parking�lot�was�divided�into�six� 

zones�(as�shown�in�Figure�1)�and�a�visual�count�was�made�every�half�hour�during�the�morning,� 

midday,�and�evening�peak�periods�to�determine�how�many�cars�were�parked�in�each�of�the�six� 

zones.��The�data�was�collected�on�Tuesday,�September�27,�2011.��The�data�was�recorded�in� 

30�minute�increments�using�hand�held�data�collection�equipment�(Jamar�Count�Boards).�� 

3268�Xenwood�Avenue�South � St.�Louis�Park,�MN�55416�� 952�378�5017 � www.SpackConsulting.com 

CC_08092012 


Spack�Consulting� 

�� 

2�of�2� 1101�E�Wayzata�Blvd�Parking�Study� 

� 

The�six�zones�contain�a�total�of�429�parking�stalls.��Detailed�existing�parking�data�by�zones�and� 

in�total�is�contained�in�Figure�1.��The�most�stalls�occupied�(277�vehicles�parked)�occurred�at� 

1:00�p.m.,�which�represents�a�65%�occupancy�of�the�available�parking.�� 

� 

A�parking�generation�analysis�was�performed�for�the�proposed�redevelopment�based�on�the� 

methods�and�rates�published�in�the�ITE�Parking�Generation�Manual,�4 th �Edition.��The�Manual� 

is�a�compilation�of�data�collected�at�existing�facilities�throughout�the�United�States.��The�85 th � 

percentile�peak�period�parking�demand�(meaning�the�peak�rate�at�85%�of�site’s�surveyed�are� 

less�than�this�rate,�it’s�more�conservative�than�using�the�average�peak�rate)�for�each�use�is:� 

� 2,700�sq�ft�bank�with�drive�through�lanes�(ITE�Code�912)�at�5.67�parked�vehicles�per� 

1,000�sq�ft�=�16�vehicles� 

� 2,138� sq� ft� Noodles� in� Regency� Center� (ITE� Code� 933)� at� 14.50� parked� vehicles� per� 

1,000�sq�ft�=�31�vehicles� 

� 

Based�on�the�descriptions�in�the�Manual,�it�is�assumed�the�Noodles�has�no�parking�during�the� 

morning� peak� but� has� peak� parking� demand� during� both� the� midday� and� evening� peak� 

periods.� � To� be� conservative,� it� is� assumed� the� bank’s� peak� parking� demand� occurs� during� 

each� study� period.� � These� forecasts� along� with� the� surplus� parking� available� after� 

redevelopment�are�shown�in�Figure�1.��Figure�1�shows�there�is�adequate�parking�provided�to� 

accommodate�the�parking�needs�of�the�proposed�redevelopment.� 

� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


Figure 1 - 1101 East Wayzata Boulevard Shopping Center Parking Occupancy Study 

Data Collected on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 

Vehicles Parked per Zone 

Peak 

Surplus 

Total Vehicles Existing Noodles Redevelopment Parking After 

Start Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parked Surplus Parking Parking Redevelopment 

7:00 2 6 1 23 3 14 49 380 0 16 366 

7:30 5 6 1 31 0 19 62 367 0 16 356 

8:00 7 10 0 25 15 20 77 352 0 16 343 

8:30 7 15 0 32 16 22 92 337 0 16 328 

9:00 9 11 2 37 30 22 111 318 0 16 311 

11:00 9 13 5 84 75 27 213 216 31 16 178 

11:30 9 8 8 84 80 28 217 212 31 16 174 

12:00 9 14 6 101 89 29 248 181 31 16 143 

12:30 10 14 9 103 91 26 253 176 31 16 139 

13:00 10 14 10 120 91 32 277 152 31 16 115 

16:00 13 10 7 81 85 29 225 204 31 16 170 

16:30 11 9 9 79 80 30 218 211 31 16 175 

17:00 12 6 9 88 76 31 222 207 31 16 172 

17:30 11 8 10 86 76 30 221 208 31 16 172 

18:00 7 4 8 79 63 21 182 247 31 16 207 

18:30 5 5 6 65 60 21 162 267 31 16 225 

Parking Capacity 33 35 14 152 131 64 429 

�� 

CC_08092012 


Note: Surplus Parking After Redevelopment = Existing Surplus - Peak Redevelopment Parking Forecast - Forecast Noodles Parking 

+ Zone 1 Vehicles (these are vehicles at Blockbuster that won't be there after redevelopment)

Drive-Through Queue Generation 

Mike Spack, PE, PTOE, Max Moreland, EIT, Lindsay de Leeuw, Nate Hood 

1.0 Introduction 

This report provides queuing data for businesses with drive-through services. It is intended to 

be an aid for site designers and reviewers, similar to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 

Trip Generation and Parking Generation reports. The data presentation is modeled on the 

Parking Generation report and data is provided based on at least six sites, similar to data sets 

marked as statistically significant in Trip Generation. 

Businesses with drive-through lanes are very common in the United States and having data that 

gives usage information for drive-through lanes will assist designers as well as cities in 

determining the appropriate amount of storage needed for proposed drive-through businesses. 

Data for drive-through queues was published by the ITE Technical Council Committee 5D-10 in 

1995 based on information collected between the late 1960’s and the 1990’s. A paper was also 

published in 2009 by Mark Stuecheli, PTP giving updated information for bank and coffee shop 

drive-through lanes. The results from the 2009 study are incorporated into this paper (thank 

you Mark for your assistance). 

2.0 Data Collection 

�� 

Data was collected using COUNTcam video recording systems at a total of 30 drive-through 

locations in Minneapolis, MN and several surrounding suburbs between 2010 and 2012 (26 of 

the 30 videos were recorded in February of 2012, which should represent peak usage in the 

cold Minnesota winter). Videos of drive-through lanes were collected at banks, car washes, 

coffee shops, fast food restaurants and pharmacies. A total of six locations were selected for 

each of the five different land uses. Each location was recorded for between one and five days 

where the majority of locations were recorded for two consecutive days. The days of the week 

that each video was recorded on varies. 

The 24-hour videos were watched at high speeds with the PC-TAS counting software and 

maximum queues throughout the day were noted. Most of the COUNTcams were set up such 

that the entire queue lane could be seen, but at a few locations the drive-through lanes 

wrapped around the building in a way that the entire queue length would not be able to be 

seen. For these situations, the COUNTcams were set up so that the ordering window and back 

of the queue could be seen and it was noted how many vehicles could fit between the ordering 

window and the front of the queue. For drive-through locations with multiple lanes, the 

number of lanes was noted but the maximum queue is defined as the sum of the queues at 

each lane for any given point in time, not the queue per lane. This approach provides overall 

demand, which may assist designers in determining how many drive through lanes are 

appropriate in addition to determining how long they should be. 

Drive-Through Queue Generation 1 February 2012 

CC_08092012 


Once the maximum queue for each day at each location was determined, the data was 

compiled and statistics for each land use were calculated. The average maximum queue, 

standard deviation, coefficient of variation, range, 85 th percentile and 33 rd percentile were 

calculated for each land use. 

Data for drive-through coffee shops and banks from the Kansas City, Kansas metropolitan area 

was published in the 2009 paper New Drive-Through Stacking Information for Banks and Coffee 

Shops by Mark Stuecheli. This data is included in the analysis. 

3.0 Data Analysis 

�� 

Based on the peak queue lengths, it is apparent that each land use will require a different 

minimum drive through stacking distance. The results for each land use can be found below. 

The peak queue lengths for each location, broken down by land use and day of the week, can 

be found in the Appendix. 

3.1 Banks 

Data collection was done at six banks with drive-through services (including one credit union) in 

August 2011 and February 2012. Twelve days of data were collected. The banks were located 

in the cities of Minneapolis, Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park, MN. 

All of the locations had a lane with a drive-through ATM and at least two other lanes. Though 

service times may differ for ATM lanes compared to the regular lanes, the maximum queues 

were counted together. This is because based upon what was observed, vehicles would 

occasionally switch the lane they were in. For example, a vehicle waiting in the ATM line with a 

queue of three vehicles may move over to a regular line with a queue of only one vehicle. 

Much of what can be done at the bank’s drive-through lane can also be accomplished at that 

bank’s ATM and vice versa. Vehicles being served were counted as being in the queue. 

Nine days of data from the Kansas City, Kansas area is also included. This data does not factor 

in vehicles in ATM lanes. 

Table 3.1 – Drive-Through Bank Maximum Queue Statistics 

Minnesota Data Minnesota + Kansas Data 

Number of Data Points 12 21 

Average Maximum Queue (Vehicles) 5.83 5.76 

Standard Deviation (Vehicles) 1.85 2.21 

Coefficient of Variation 32% 38% 

Range (Vehicles) 3 to 8 1 to 10 

85th Percentile (Vehicles) 8.00 8.00 

33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 5.00 5.00 


CC_08092012 


Frequency 

Figure 3.1.1 – Drive-Through Bank Maximum Queue Frequency – Minnesota Data 

Frequency 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

�� 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Maximum Queue Length (Vehicles) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 3.1.2 – Drive-Through Bank Maximum Queue Frequency – Minnesota + Kansas Data 


CC_08092012 


�� 

The data for Kansas banks was collected between 4:30pm and 6:00pm. While many of the 

maximum queues for the data collected in Minnesota were between these times, maximum 

queues occurred between 8:30am and 5:30pm so it is possible that some of the Kansas data 

does not capture the actual maximum queues for the day. 

The number of available lanes at banks, not including the ATM lane, ranged from two to seven 

lanes (though the most open at one time was five lanes). Even though plenty of lanes were 

available, cars often stacked at the lane closest to the building, thus additional lanes may not 

result in shorter queues. With an 85 th percentile maximum queue of eight vehicles, the data 

suggests that banks with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate 160 feet of 

vehicle stacking. 

3.2 Car Washes 

Data collection was done at six car washes with drive-through services (including one fullservice 

car wash) in February 2012. Twelve days of data were collected. The car washes were 

located in the cities of Falcon Heights, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Roseville and St. Louis Park, MN. 

Five of the six car washes (excluding the full-service car wash) were located at gas stations. 

Only the vehicles waiting in line were counted; vehicles being washed were not added to the 

queue. 

Table 3.2 – Drive-Through Car Wash Maximum Queue Statistics 

Number of Data Points 12 

Average Maximum Queue (Vehicles) 4.42 

Standard Deviation (Vehicles) 2.31 

Coefficient of Variation 52% 

Range (Vehicles) 1 to 10 

85 th Percentile (Vehicles) 6.20 

33 rd Percentile (Vehicles) 3.00 


CC_08092012 


Frequency 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

�� 

0 2 4 6 8 10 


Figure 3.2 – Drive-Through Car Wash Maximum Queue Frequency 

Two of the car washes had two lanes while the other four were one lane car washes. The fullservice 

car wash had two lanes and also produced the highest maximum queue of 10 vehicles. 

The maximum queues for car washes were spread throughout the afternoon from 12:30pm to 

8:30pm. With an 85 th percentile maximum queue of more than six vehicles, the data suggests 

that car washes with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate 140 feet of vehicle 

stacking throughout the day. 

3.3 Coffee Shops 

Data collection was done at six coffee shops with drive-through services in November 2010, 

August 2011 and February 2012. Fourteen days of data were collected. The coffee shops were 

located in the cities of Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Roseville and St. Louis Park, MN. Vehicles 

being served were counted as being in the queue. Twelve days of data from the Kansas City, 

Kansas area is also included. 

Table 3.3 – Drive-Through Coffee Shop Maximum Queue Statistics 

Minnesota Data Minnesota + Kansas Data 

Number of Data Points 14 26 

Average Maximum Queue (Vehicles) 11.00 10.23 

Standard Deviation (Vehicles) 2.25 2.76 

Coefficient of Variation 20% 27% 

Range (Vehicles) 7 to 16 3 to 16 

85th Percentile (Vehicles) 13.50 13.00 

33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 10.00 9.91 


CC_08092012 


Frequency 

Figure 3.3.1 – Drive-Through Coffee Shop Maximum Queue Frequency – Minnesota Data 

Frequency 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

�� 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 


Figure 3.3.2 – Drive-Through Coffee Shop Maximum Queue Frequency – MN + KS Data 


CC_08092012 


�� 

Coffee shops produced the longest maximum queues of any of the land uses in this study with 

all of the maximum queues occurring in the morning. In four of the six cases, the queues spilled 

out of the parking lot and into the street. These spillovers would typically only happen once or 

twice a day and last only a few minutes, however, one location had stacking into the street for 

about 15 minutes in addition to multiple periods of several minutes where cars would queue in 

the street. 

With an 85 th percentile maximum queue of 13 vehicles, the data suggests that coffee shops 

with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate at least 260 feet of vehicle stacking 

during morning hours. 

3.4 Fast Food Restaurants 

Data collection was done at six fast food restaurants with drive-through services in August 2011 

and February 2012. Fourteen days of data were collected. The restaurants were located in the 

cities of Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, MN. Vehicles being served 

were counted as being in the queue. 

Table 3.4 – Drive-Through Fast Food Restaurant Maximum Queue Statistics 





Range (Vehicles) 5-13 

85th Percentile (Vehicles) 12.00 

33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 7.90 


CC_08092012 


Frequency 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

�� 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 


Figure 3.4 – Drive-Through Fast Food Restaurant Maximum Queue Frequency 

The maximum queues for fast food restaurants were spread throughout the day from 8:00am 

to 10:00pm. With an 85 th percentile maximum queue of 12 vehicles, the data suggests that fast 

food restaurants with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate 240 feet of vehicle 


3.5 Pharmacies 

Data collection was done at six pharmacies with drive-through services in February 2012. 

Twelve days of data were collected. The pharmacies were located in the cities of Hopkins, 

Minneapolis, New Hope and Robbinsdale, MN. Vehicles being served were counted as being in 

the queue. 

Table 3.5 – Drive-Through Pharmacy Maximum Queue Statistics 





Range (Vehicles) 1-5 

85th Percentile (Vehicles) 4.05 

33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 2.00 


CC_08092012 


Frequency 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Figure 3.5 – Drive-Through Pharmacy Maximum Queue Frequency 

The maximum queues for pharmacies were spread throughout the day from 8:00am to 

10:00pm. With an 85 th percentile maximum queue of more than 4 vehicles, the data suggests 

that pharmacies with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate 100 feet of vehicle 


4.0 Conclusions 

�� 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


The 85 th percentile maximum queue lengths for each land use are: 160 feet for banks (eight 

vehicles), 140 feet for car washes (seven vehicles), 260 feet for coffee shops (13 vehicles), 240 

feet for fast food restaurants (12 vehicles) and 100 feet for pharmacies (five vehicles). 

While some of the locations observed have an excess of space dedicated to drive-through lanes 

(i.e. some banks and pharmacies), others could occasionally use additional space for drivethrough 

lanes (i.e. coffee shops in the morning). 

Fast food restaurants and coffee shops have the longest maximum queues of the five land uses 

observed. Coffee shops have a tendency for the morning queues to build so long that they spill 

out onto the street, though, as is expected, their afternoon and evening queues are minimal. 

Fast food restaurants also have large queues, but they tended to have enough dedicated space 

that stacking did not go beyond the designated queuing area. 


CC_08092012 


The data collected for this paper along with the data from the papers by Mark Stuecheli and the 

ITE Technical Committee 5D-10 (see Appendix for both of these) will hopefully provide useful 

data for traffic engineers and others trying to analyze drive-through queuing storage areas. 

5.0 Labor Savings of the COUNTkit 

Deploying people in the field to perform this data collection would not have been feasible. 

Using the COUNTcam video system made it possible to observe the drive through lanes 24 

hours a day and the PC-TAS software made the data reduction practical. One location was 

recorded in November 2010 for 6 hours, three locations were recorded in August 2011 for a 

total of 202 hours and 26 locations were recorded in February 2012 for a total of 1012 hours. 

These 1220 hours of video were counted with a total of 120 hours of labor, meaning the videos 

were watched at approximately 10x speed. Installation of a COUNTcam takes approximately 10 

minutes and retrieval takes approximately 5 minutes. This whole project was completed in 

approximately 3 weeks. 

6.0 References 

1. Stuecheli, M. (2009). New Drive-Through Stacking Information for Banks and Coffee 

Shops. ITE 2009 Annual Meeting and Exhibit. Print. 

2. ITE Technical Committee 5D-10. “Queuing Areas for Drive-Thru Facilities.” ITE Journal 

(May 1995): 38-42. Print. 

3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Parking Generation. 4 th ed. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Print. 

4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 8 th ed. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. Print. 

7.0 Appendix 

�� 

A – Day of Week Maximum Queues 

B – New Drive-Through Stacking Information for Banks and Coffee Shops 

C – ITE Technical Committee 5D-10: Queuing Areas for Drive-Thru Facilities 

D – Drive-Through Data Forms 

Note: Portions of the Appendix have been removed 

for the Wayzata Parking Study for brevity. They 

are available upon request. 


CC_08092012 


Appendix A 

Day of Week Maximum Queues 

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 

Arby's 5 5 

Burger King 6 12 10 8 

McDonald's 12 13 

McDonald's 9 8 

Taco Bell 10 8 

White Castle 8 5 

BP 6 6 

BP 1 3 

BP 4 3 

Holiday 3 4 

Mister Car Wash 10 6 

Mobil 4 3 

Caribou 11 10 

Caribou 7 10 12 12 8 

Starbucks 14 16 



Starbucks 11 

Citizens Independent Bank 5 5 

SharePoint Credit Union 3 3 

TCF 4 8 8 

US Bank 7 7 

Wells Fargo 8 6 

Wells Fargo 6 

CVS 1 2 

CVS 4 4 

CVS 2 2 

Walgreens 4 5 

Walgreens 3 3 

Walgreens 3 2 

Fast Food 

Car Wash 

�� 

Coffee 

Bank 

Pharmacy 

CC_08092012 


Drive-Through Queue Generation A1 February 2012

ITE Land Use Code: 

Land Use/Building Type*: 

Name of Business: 

Address: 

City: 

State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 

Weather Conditions 

Location Within Area 

(select one): 

Drive-Through Description 

Gross Floor Area (estimated) 

Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 

Drive-Through Queuing Data Form 

912 

CBD 

Urban (non-CBD) 

Suburban (non-CBD) 

Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 

Maximum Queue 

5 

5 

Appendix �� D 

Drive-in Bank 

Citizens Independent Bank 

3700 W Broadway Ave 

Robbinsdale 

MN 

55422 

February 7-8, 2012 (Tuesday-Wednesday) 

High 32 °F and Clear 

High 

Competition Within 

X Medium X 

Area 

Low 

(select one): 

4 Lanes + 1 ATM Lane 

6300 

Time Max Queue Occurred 

3:36pm 

2:37pm 

Drive-Through Queue Generation D1 February 2012 

CC_08092012 



Land Use/Building Type: 


Address: 


State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 



(select one): 

Drive-Through Description : 



Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 

912 

CBD 



Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 


Maximum Queue 

3 

3 


SharePoint Credit Union 

3670 Aquila Ave S 

St. Louis Park 

MN 

55426 

February 1-2, 2012 (Wednesday-Thursday) 

High 32-36 °F and Fog 

High 


X Medium X 

Area 

Low 

(select one): 


7,850 sq. ft 


3:28pm 

8:51am, 10:37am 


CC_08092012 





Address: 


State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 



(select one): 




Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 

912 

CBD 



Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 


Maximum Queue 

4 

8 

8 


TCF Bank 

8020 Highway 7 

St. Louis Park 

MN 

55426 

August 5-7, 2011 (Friday-Sunday) 

High 84-88 °F and Clear 

High 


X Medium X 

Area 

Low 

(select one): 


6,000 sq. ft 


5:18pm 

12:20pm, 2:20pm 

11:40am 


CC_08092012 





Address: 


State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 



(select one): 




Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 

912 

CBD 



Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 


Maximum Queue 

7 

7 


US Bank 

4000 W Broadway Ave 

Robbinsdale 

MN 

55422 



High 


X Medium X 

Area 

Low 

(select one): 


21,550 sq. ft. 


4:47pm, 5:04pm 

3:00pm, 5:26pm 


CC_08092012 





Address: 


State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 



(select one): 



Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 


912 

CBD 



Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 

Maximum Queue 

6 



Wells Fargo 

425 E Hennepin Ave 

Minneapolis 

MN 

55414 

February 7, 2012 (Tuesday) 


X High 


Area 

(select one): 


12,000 sq. ft. 


1:18pm 

Medium X 

Low 


CC_08092012 





Address: 


State: 

Zip Code: 

Date(s) 



(select one): 



Sunday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

Thursday 

Friday 

Saturday 


912 

CBD 



Suburban CBD 

Rural 

Not Given 

Maximum Queue 

8 

6 



Wells Fargo 

2329 Central Ave NE 

Minneapolis 

MN 

55418 



X High 


Area 

(select one): 

20,125 sq. ft. 


Medium X 

Low 

7 Lanes (4-5 Lanes were open at various points) + 1 ATM Lane 

4:41pm 

11:27am, 1:48pm, 2:23pm, 4:32pm, 5:25pm 


CC_08092012 


TO: Mike Kelly, PE, City Engineer 


FROM: Marie Cote, PE, Principal 

DATE: June 4, 2012 

�� 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: TCF PARKING CAPACITY STUDY REVIEW 

SRF No. 0117815 

As requested, we have completed a review of the proposed site plan changes for the former 

Blockbuster building and TCF Parking Capacity Study memorandum prepared by Spack 

Consulting dated May 21, 2012. The current proposal includes a 2,700 square foot bank with 

three drive-through lanes located in the northeast quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard and CSAH 

101. Based on our review, we offer the following comments for your consideration: 

� The site of the proposed redevelopment is in the former Blockbuster building (1101 

Wayzata Boulevard) located adjacent to the Colonial Square shopping center. However, 

the proposed redevelopment site is not a part of the Regency Centers’ Colonial Square 

shopping center (1151 Wayzata Boulevard). 

� The parking capacity study conducted for the former Blockbuster store included the 

Colonial Square shopping center. Based on the study results, the shopping center 

provides 429 parking spaces for employees and customers. With the proposed TCF bank 

and additional Noodles restaurant being built within the shopping center, the peak 

parking demand is estimated at 314 vehicles, (73 percent of the available parking). Study 

conclusions identify adequate parking to accommodate the proposed TCF bank. 

� On an individual basis, SRF has verified the study results identifying the peak parking 

demand for the proposed bank at 16 vehicles. The site plan included as part of the 

technical memorandum identifies 13 parking spaces. The City should require a Regency 

Centers’ approval to allow shared parking between the proposed bank site and the 

Colonial Square shopping center. 

CC_08092012 


�� 

Mike Kelly, PE June 4, 2012 

Page 2 

� Based on the Drive-Through Queue Generation documentation provided, the peak queue 

demand of eight vehicles at the bank’s drive through is supported by the necessary data 

and analysis. Although the proposed site plan shows adequate stacking for the eight 

vehicles, it is important to note that many vehicles are expected to enter the drive-through 

lanes from Wayzata Boulevard. However, this direction of approach will not create 

queuing problems as adequate stacking room will still be provided in the proposed drivethrough 

area. 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


�� 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

WAYZATA PLANNING COMMISSION 


JULY 2, 2012 

AGENDA ITEM 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Approval of Minutes. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

PC070212 - 1 

Present at roll call were Commissioners: Babcock, Crowder, Gonzalez, and Pearson. Absent and 

excused: Chair Wock, Commissioners Anderson and Iverson. City Planner Gadow and Council 

Liaison Amdal were also present. 

Commissioner Babcock asked staff to add additional information to Page 2, Line 8, to address a 

negative impact i.e., (a negative would be looking out onto a generator). 

Commissioner Babcock referenced Page 9, Line 40, and asked if staff had prepared a definition 

for the conservation district. City Planner Gadow stated he is preparing that definition for 

consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Babcock referenced Page 11, Line 9, relating to the meeting with Unison. She 

stated she had attended that meeting and would like the entire Planning Commission in 

attendance before providing a report on the Unison meeting. 

Commissioner Babcock asked staff to revise Page 11, Line 42, to indicate she was talking about 

the driveway to the Water Treatment Center, not the driveway to the park. 

Commissioner Babcock suggested the name of the Council Liaison in attendance be shown in 

the meeting minutes so the City Council knows who to direct questions to should it have 

questions. 

Commissioner Pearson asked staff to clarify the wording of Page 4, Line 8, to reflect that the 

point of his statement is that in his experience as a lawyer, there is no such thing as a mutual 

agreement as to an expert witness. That is not how the adversarial process works. City Planner 

Gadow stated he will review the tape and determine if additional language can be added as a 

parenthetical. 

Commissioner Pearson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Babcock, to approve the 

June 18, 2012 meeting minutes as amended above. The motion passed 4/0. 

AGENDA ITEM 2. Regular Agenda Public Hearing Item. 

a. 1101 Wayzata Boulevard E – TCF Bank 

i. Design Review 

ii. Conditional Use Permit for Dive-Thru Facility 

iii. Variance for Stacking Distance for Drive-Thru Facility 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC070212 - 2 

City Planner Gadow presented the application of TCF Bank requesting approval of design 

standards review with two deviations, a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a drive-thru 

banking facility, and a variance for the number of car stacking for the drive-thru facility to 

construct a new 2,700 sq. ft. bank with three drive-thru lanes at 1101 Wayzata Boulevard E. He 

indicated the two design standard deviations relate to the amount of glass and the amount of 

accent material. The plan proposes to use metal material for part of the tower that provides a 

building entrance element. City Planner Gadow stated the applicant is open to discussion of 

building materials and, if required, to convert metal to glass to meet the requirement of that 

design standard. The property is guided for Mixed Use Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan 

and zoned C-2 Shopping Center District. It was noted a banking facility is permitted; however, 

the drive-thru requires a CUP. City Planner Gadow presented an aerial photo, existing 

conditions survey, demolition plan, and proposed site plan, describing elements of each. He 

reviewed the landscape plan, noting enhancements since this is a gateway location and that the 

tree size will be converted to 3 inches to meet Code requirements. A three-dimensional 

rendering of each elevation was displayed and described to provide context. 

Commissioner Crowder asked about the east elevation and the equipment shown at the 

intersection corner. City Planner Gadow stated they are utility equipment cabinets, located on 

City property, and would remain but staff could look into whether the cabinets could be 

landscaped. 

City Planner Gadow completed presentation of the three-dimensional renderings, noting 

relocation of mechanicals from the roof to the ground. He then displayed samples of the 

proposed building materials. 

Commissioner Crowder asked if part of the building would be demolished. City Planner Gadow 

answered in the affirmative. 

City Planner Gadow explained how the interior of the building would be laid out and lighting 

plan, noting the fixtures would be down lit to assure light is not cast to adjacent properties. 

City Planner next presented the variance request. He advised this lot is smaller than required for 

this zoning district. The proposal is for the following lane distances: Lane 1 at 114.6 feet; Lane 

2 at 111.6 feet; and, Lane 3 at 106.6 feet. A variance is being requested because Code requires 

180 feet of stacking distance for each drive-thru lane. It was noted a traffic study was provided 

indicating peak demand would be eight car users of the drive-thru facility. The City’s traffic 

consultant reviewed the study and concurred with that analysis. 

City Planner Gadow advised of action steps for the Commission’s consideration to develop 

findings of fact based upon the staff report and any revisions the Commission wishes to make or 

to direct staff to prepare a Planning Report and Recommendation with appropriate findings and 

conditions for review and adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Pearson stated he goes to Lunds three times a week and finds the traffic access 

out of the parking lot, going east, to be dangerous so it makes him nervous to add traffic to this 

location. He asked if the City is considering a signal light coming out of the parking lot, just east 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

�� 

PC070212 - 3 

of Noodles by Sports Shack. City Planner Gadow indicated the City is not considering a light in 

that location. 

Commissioner Pearson stated it is difficult to make a left turn out of that parking lot because 

traffic is racing down Wayzata Boulevard. City Planner Gadow explained that some of the street 

project work will help to channel and slow traffic on Wayzata Boulevard but the only 

recommendation on this application is to potentially add a “pork chop” in the sidewalk to 

prevent left turn movement from this curb cut back onto Central Avenue. City Planner Gadow 

advised the City Engineer felt a right-in and right-out would help relieve traffic concerns in the 

Central Avenue area but expressed no comment on the Wayzata Boulevard side. 

Commissioner Pearson asked for historical context for consideration of deviations, both granted 

and denied, to assure consistency. City Planner Gadow explained the Code includes a process 

and list of criteria by which an applicant can receive a design deviation if the Planning 

Commission and City Council finds there is a compelling reason why a design deviation is 

needed. With regard to past projects, the Planning Commission found compelling reasons to 

recommend approval of several design deviations for the 415 Indian Mound application and for 

the Cenacle site to match historical character. In this case, one design deviation relates to the 

amount of glass and the other deviation relates to the percentage of accent materials. 

Commissioner Pearson clarified he had no philosophical objection to considering a design 

deviation, but wanted to assure consistent consideration of all applicants. City Planner Gadow 

advised that consideration of design deviations are on a case-by-case basis dependent upon and 

specific to the project based on whether or not the ordinance criteria is met and/or the deviation 

makes sense. If not approved, the applicant is required to revise the project to meet that 

particular design criteria. 

Commissioner Babcock asked what remediation is available to the City should it be found the 

use results in traffic impacts and/or conflicts with thru traffic movements. She also noted it may 

be difficult for parked cars to get out if blocked by drive-thru vehicles during peak demand. City 

Planner Gadow indicated the traffic analysis determined peak stacking demand for the drive-thru 

would be 8 vehicles at any one time. He stated the variance is being requested to allow lesser 

stacking distance on the interior of the property. However, if there was an increased demand at 

this bank, vehicles could be waiting (stacking) to get into the drive-thru lanes. 

Commissioner Babcock asked whether the 180-foot distance is a City Code or State standard. 

City Planner Gadow advised it was part of the City Code. 

Commissioner Babcock noted vehicles in the drive-thru would face at an angle, possibly 

directing headlights into residential properties, especially during winter months. She raised the 

option of requiring a fence or kiosk on the grass area toward Highway 101 to block headlights 

from drive-thru vehicles. City Planner Gadow stated staff can look at that option but the 

challenge is that location would be on Colonial Square property and County rights-of-way so 

permission would need to be gained. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC070212 - 4 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked how old is the 180-foot drive-thru distance requirement. City 

Planner Gadow advised it did not exist prior to the late-1980s and previous drive-thru facilities 

(restaurants/banks) have received a CUP without the 180-foot stacking length. He stated that in 

about 1992, that Code section was adopted but the record does not indicate why it was adopted at 

that time. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez stated some yeas ago the City granted a variance for a commercial bank 

at Minnetonka Boulevard and Lake Street. She noted that bank has since moved but asked if 

there had been a problem with vehicle stacking on the street while it was at that location. City 

Planner Gadow stated he is not aware of any problems. 

Mike Kraft, HTG Architects representing the applicant, stated TCF Bank has a presence in 

Wayzata and executive offices and many people have been asking why TCF Bank does not offer 

a full business. TCF Bank has been looking for place to position a branch bank and found a site 

it thinks will work well for that function. Mr. Kraft noted the subject site poses a few 

difficulties. It is a fairly small site, under one-half an acre, which brings limitation for parking 

availability. In addition, it is a steep site with the entrance from Central Avenue to front door 

dropping a full four feet within a 50-foot area. These features make it a challenging site to do 

civil engineering and provide full accessibility. 

Mr. Kraft advised this site has access/parking agreements with Colonial Square, with limitations 

so not any use can occupy this building due to competition limitations. He noted it would not 

likely be a coffee shop or food use due to those limitations. However, it is a uniquely 

appropriate site for a bank use because, as all are aware, there has been a decline in visits to 

financial institution, which makes sites like this more feasible and a 2,500 sq. ft. building more 

viable. In addition, a bank means a long-term and owner-occupied use so it is able to address 

site issues such as grading and possibly needing to raise the floor elevation to create safe and 

ADA access. This bank would also have a low parking need that suits this property better than 

other uses. Mr. Kraft noted this site is valuable for a bank because of its high visibility and 

access, though not a tremendous number of cars will be coming into the site, which addresses the 

concern expressed by Commissioner Pearson relating to traffic flow. Mr. Kraft pointed out that 

when compared to other potential uses, a bank is a good use for this property. 

Mr. Kraft stated TCF Bank is excited about this opportunity and would take down a portion of 

the existing building, softening the current stark look to create a village-like appearance with 

additional brick, coating the stucco with a long-lasting surface, and re-landscaping to make the 

corner more appealing. He indicated they would also like to find a solution to the equipment 

cabinets mentioned by Commissioner Pearson. With regard to the drive-up, he explained they 

intentionally engaged a traffic consultant who had determined a previous proposal would not 

work on the site. That same traffic consultant determined this use would result in a peak of eight 

cars at the drive-up; however, the proposal has doubled that capacity before getting to the crosseasement 

property. Mr. Kraft explained that HTG Architects designs banks and it is typical to 

see ordinances requiring stacking for four to five vehicles per lane. Fortunately, this proposal 

can accommodate five vehicles with room to spare. Mr. Kraft concluded his remarks by 

indicating the subject site is uniquely suited for this application and the proposed improvements 

will help this property for the next 20 years. He asked for the Planning Commission’s support. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

�� 

PC070212 - 5 

Commissioner Crowder asked whether an irrigation system would be installed for the trees and 

landscaping. Mr. Kraft answered in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Babcock stated her support for Hackberry trees that are “tough trees” and also 

attract birds. She noted there will be a lot of queuing on Wayzata Boulevard and asked if it is 

possible to plant a few more trees into the south area to help with pollution as well as another 

tree in the sodded area. Mr. Kraft noted the area being referenced parallels Wayzata Boulevard 

and they have talked with staff about the landscaping in the corner area, which they consider to 

be important. He assured the Planning Commission that TCF Bank will make landscaping as 

compatible as possible with the City’s improvements and circular planters. 

Commissioner Babcock stated she also wants trees, not just landscaping, to soften the 

appearance, noting at one time a Linden tree had been considered. Mr. Kraft stated they can 

plant trees like that along Wayzata Boulevard. Commissioner Babcock noted past uses of this 

site have included a retail outlet and savings and loan bank, all uses where patrons turn off their 

vehicles and enter the building. However, the proposed use will result in queuing vehicles that 

remain running so she would like to address pollution and also have the City plant shrubs in 

front of the equipment cabinets to soften the appearance. 

Commissioner Babcock complimented the applicant for the wood and brick enclosures for the 

mechanical equipment. Mr. Kraft thanked Commissioner Babcock and stated they had talked 

with staff about the existing rooftop equipment, which was very visible, and agreed it needed to 

be relocated. 

Commissioner Babcock asked if HTG Architects was the architect for this building alone or 

worked for TCF. Mr. Kraft stated he does other banks as well and noted the proposed design is 

not franchise architecture. Commissioner Babcock addressed the appearance of the tower and 

asked if it can be softened and adapted to Colonial Square architecture. She stated she is not 

bothered by the amount of metal being proposed but does not care for the appearance of the 

tower. 

Commissioner Babcock agreed this is a difficult site and stated she is amazed the applicant is 

considering raising the elevation. Mr. Kraft concurred it is remarkably steep and somewhat 

dangerous. 

Commissioner Pearson stated the “No Park and Ride Parking” signs in the Colonial Square 

parking lot are ignored. He asked if there is an enforcement mechanism since that parking 

creates part of the problem at Colonial Square. City Planner Gadow stated he does not know 

how that could be enforced unless the City’s police resources are used to monitor. In addition, 

Colonial Square is private property. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez noted Colonial Square could tow a vehicle if found in violation. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC070212 - 6 

Commissioner Pearson stated he is not implying vehicles should be towed but there has been 

discussion before about how to enforce such signage. He stated when he uses that parking lot 

mid-day, he can tell a large percentage of the vehicles are not parked for shopping. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez referenced the staff report, Page 11, Section 4.1, Department Comments 

and Discussion Items, dealing with the Utility Superintendent’s recommendations on the water 

and sewer service. She asked if the Planning Commission should consider those items as 

possible conditions in its recommendation. City Planner Gadow answered in the affirmative and 

suggested an addition to Section 4.1 indicating: “3. The applicant shall be required to coordinate 

utility improvements with the Utility Superintendent.” 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked if the City Engineer’s recommendations contained in Section 4.2 

were conditions in this recommendation. City Planner Gadow advised that Section 4.2.1, 

“Should examine the potential of a right-in/right-out configuration onto Central Avenue for 

channelization with both property owners” would be difficult to place as a condition because it 

requires partnership between two property owners, one of which is not party to this application. 

However, the applicant could be asked to conduct additional research on that option. City 

Planner Gadow indicated that Section 4.2.2 relates to water service and Section 4.2.3 is advisory 

relating to depth of the water main. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez stated she wanted to assure the applicant was aware of staff’s comments 

and recommendations. Mr. Kraft stated they are aware and happy to be part of any meetings 

relating to the potential for a right-in/right-out configuration onto Central Avenue. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked about Section 4.3, Park Department’s comments on proper tree 

protection measures. City Planner Gadow explained that comment relates to protection of trees 

to be newly planted. 

Commissioner Babcock noted there are existing trees on the west side but they are in poor 

condition. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked who will be the users of this site. Mr. Kraft stated it will be a fullfunction 

bank so people will go into the building to talk about things like loans, use the drive-up, 

and the ATM. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked about the location of the building entrance and questioned public 

safety if customers have to walk across the path of cars in the drive-thru lanes. Mr. Kraft 

indicated handicap and prime parking will be along Central Avenue and confirmed there will be 

safe pedestrian access into the building. He explained this also involved the change in elevation 

and they were pleased to have found a solution to assure ease of access. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez acknowledged there has been a problem in Wayzata with commercial 

uses that have brightly illuminated signage that meets Code yet still impacts the quality of life in 

adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Kraft stated the signage will be illuminated 24 hours a day by an 

internal gas tube to create a glow. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC070212 - 7 

Acting Chair Gonzalez stated due to this concern, she would not support a project that impacts 

quality of life. She stated should there be problems with this issue, she would expect TCF Bank 

to be a “good neighbor” and mitigate that concern. City Planner Gadow recommended requiring 

a dimmer switch on the signs facing any residential neighborhood so the luminance could be 

adjusted, should there be a future situation. 

Mr. Kraft stated a willingness to make that part of the conversation. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez supported including a condition to address this issue and Mr. Kraft can 

then address it before the City Council. 

Commissioner Crowder asked if the sign will be illuminated when the bank is closed. Mr. Kraft 

answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Crowder stated that is the problem. Mr. Kraft 

suggested that be part of the further conversation. 

Commissioner Babcock asked if new mechanicals will be installed that meet sound standards. 

Mr. Kraft answered in the affirmative and indicated the air conditioners will be residentialfriendly. 

Commissioner Babcock asked if there will be stone or pavers for pedestrians to use when 

crossing areas of turf. Mr. Kraft indicated there will be a walking surface that will also be 

cleared of snow during winter months. It is their intent that east side parking will be used by 

employees and overflow visitor parking, when necessary. 

Commissioner Babcock stated people do not like walking on grass, which also makes it appear 

“shoddy.” Mr. Kraft stated at a certain point, pedestrians will have to cross the parking area. 

Commissioner Babcock asked if a walkway will be created to provide safe passage if the three 

parking spaces on the west are filled. Mr. Kraft stated they have a sidewalk along the north and 

will definitely provide a pathway, though it may not be the most direct route. 

Commissioner Crowder noted they are contemplating to use more than 10% of the façade for 

steel panels and asked what would be the alternatives. Mr. Kraft stated the most common 

alternative in areas proposed to be metal panels (areas that are high and hanging from the 

building) tend to be a lightweight stucco (EFIS) but they prefer to not use that material. He 

stated the proposed steel panels are an upgraded product to grooved siding used on most driveup 

canopies. 

Commissioner Babcock asked about a change in color from white. Commissioner Crowder 

stated he understands that TCF wants to draw attention so the white color accomplishes that 

purpose but the City also wants the design to blend. Mr. Kraft stated the white color is not a 

requirement. 

Commissioner Crowder noted Code requires that 50% of the ground level façade be glass but the 

west elevation shows 33% and the south elevation shows 27%. Mr. Kraft explained that is a 

result of the existing building and a small amount of glass is lost in the sill by raising the 

elevation of the floor. It is planned to reuse the window openings, as they currently exist, with 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC070212 - 8 

the exception of the sill area that will be exchanged for brick. The glass has a low “E” coating 

on the back that adds a slight hue but it is not colored glass. 

Commissioner Pearson asked if there are other signs in Colonial Square that are illuminated 24 

hours a day. City Planner Gadow answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Pearson asked 

about the signs of other banks. City Planner Gadow stated he is unsure. Commissioner Pearson 

asked whether it would be fair to allow other banks to illuminate signs 24-hours a day yet restrict 

TCF from doing the same. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez stated there was another commercial sign that was very bright and 

shining into neighbor’s bedrooms and an agreement had to be reached to dim that sign. 

Commissioner Pearson stated he wanted to assure that all commercial entities are treated 

consistently. Acting Chair Gonzalez agreed but noted the Comprehensive Plan requires the City 

to protect neighborhoods from uses that encroach into their quality of life and she is sure the 

applicant will come to a reasonable solution. 

Commissioner Crowder noted it is an issue of degree of illumination. He recalled that when a 

body shop went in on the north side of 394 and the Holdridge neighborhood, there was an issue 

with the illuminated sign. That concern was addressed by lowering the level of illumination so it 

did not glow. Commissioner Crowder stated he did not have a problem with the TCF Bank sign 

being illuminated 24 hours a day as long as it does not impact the neighbors. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez applauded the applicant for enclosing the mechanicals, adding 

landscaping and trees. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. 

Craig Alshouse, owner of the Metropolitan Dermatology and M & I Bank buildings (1200 

Wayzata Blvd), stated he found the current site to be an eyesore including the trash enclosure. 

He stated he supports the proposed project and use of the same building materials for the new 

trash enclosure. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Alshouse stated the City owns the boulevard in 

front of his buildings and he spends over $10,000 a year for flowers. To avoid a haphazard 

appearance and assure consistency, Mr. Alshouse suggested the City be responsible for planting 

the flower bowls on the applicant’s corner and TCF Bank be responsible for the rest of the area 

and maintenance. 

Mr. Alshouse stated the proposal shows 13 parking stalls and suggested the two parking spaces 

in the northeast corner be eliminated to create additional green space, noting additional parking 

can be gained through the cross access/parking agreement with Colonial Square, if needed. City 

Planner Gadow clarified that the SRF traffic study indicated peak parking demand is 16 vehicles 

but City Code requires only 12 parking spaces. Should 2 parking spaces be eliminated, the site 

would have 11 parking spaces, one short of Code requirement. 

Mr. Alshouse raised the issue of snow plowing and need for areas to accommodate snow storage. 

He stated in the past, there have been large snow piles in the southeast and northeast corners and 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

�� 

PC070212 - 9 

asked where snow can be stored on the proposed site. Mr. Alshouse noted if the two parking 

stalls in the northeast corner are eliminated, that area could be used for snow storage. 

Mr. Alshouse asked if the maximum queuing is eight cars. Mr. Kraft responded the traffic study 

indicated that in its assessment. Mr. Alshouse asked why two drive-thru lanes would not be 

adequate. Mr. Kraft explained that three drive-thru lanes allow vehicles to pass through more 

quickly. 

Mr. Alshouse advised that M & I Bank has one drive-thru, with the ATM in the same lane, and a 

by-pass lane. He suggested the proposed TCF Bank canopy that covers two lanes looks nice but 

appears contrived to install a third drive-thru lane. Mr. Alshouse questioned whether a third 

drive-thru lane is really needed. 

Mr. Alshouse asked whether the proposed tower is TCF Bank branding. Mr. Kraft answered it is 

not. Mr. Alshouse stated he has no objection to the tower as long as it does not block view of the 

shopping center. With regard to lighting, he suggested there is a difference when the sign is on a 

building and the letters lighted. Mr. Alshouse doubted the sign would create problems into the 

residential neighborhood and indicated the Wells Fargo, M & I Bank, and U.S. Bank signs are lit 

24 hours a day. He indicated that M & I Bank will soon become BMO Harris Bank so a new 

sign package was considered that has black lettering during the day and white lettering during 

the night, which may be an option for this site. 

Mr. Alshouse stated he supports the plan and thinks the Planning Commission and City Council 

will make changes they see fit. 

There being no comment, Acting Chair Gonzalez closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. 

Commissioner Crowder asked if TCF Bank would be willing to take over landscaping/ 

maintenance of the corner if the City is willing to give up that responsibility. Mr. Kraft stated 

TCF Bank would come to the table and be part of that conversation. 

City Planner Gadow stated the City would not be opposed but need to talk through the details. 

He stated it could be added as a condition that the applicant continue discussions with the City 

regarding unifying landscaping and maintenance on the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Kraft 

suggested the City relocate the utility cabinets and TCF Bank take over the landscaping. 

Commissioner Crowder stated he supports the project and would not object to more than 10% 

steel panels on the building façades but would like it a different color than white. He supported 

improvement to the signage, such as back lighting, and taller landscaping on the south side 

facing Wayzata Boulevard to hide queuing vehicles. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked if there are questions on the design critique. City Planner Gadow 

advised the proposal complies with requirements of the design critique with the exception of the 

two deviations being requested. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

�� 

PC070212 - 10 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked if the Commissioners had comments on the deviation to allow 

more than 10% steel on the building façade. Commissioner Crowder stated if this was new 

construction he would support meeting the glass requirement; however, this is an existing 

structure and not a location where people walk and shop so he feels the deviation is justified. 

Commissioners Babcock and Pearson and Acting Chair Gonzalez agreed. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez asked if the Commissioners had comments on the deviation for use of 

glass. Commissioner Crowder stated he does not object to this deviation subject to use of a 

different color of glass. Commissioner Babcock concurred and stated she would also like to see 

a different color on the sills and to tweak the design of the tower. 

Commissioner Babcock stated support for the suggestion of Mr. Alshouse to remove two parking 

spaces. City Planner Gadow stated staff will look at that option; however, it would result in the 

parking being short by one space. 

Commissioner Crowder stated he also supports that suggestion and would be willing to consider 

a parking variance since it would create additional green space. Chair Planner Gadow advised 

the Planning Commission could suggest the City Council consider it as part of its review for a 

variance to the parking requirement or as part of the CUP to allow a reduction in the number of 

parking spaces based on parking demand and other factors. 

Commissioner Pearson asked about snow removal responsibilities for this area. City Planner 

Gadow indicated this is two private properties so the owners would make arrangements to have 

the site plowed and there are requirements in how soon the snow has to be hauled away. 

Commissioner Babcock supported requiring two more trees along the highway by the Alpine 

Current and Boulevard Linden in the southwest corner. If the utility cabinets cannot be moved, 

she suggested planting Boxwoods or other landscaping to provide screening. 

Acting Chair Gonzalez stated she is not bothered by the two parking spaces and does not care if 

they are or are not removed to create additional green space. She thanked the applicant for the 

effort of landscaping a site that is becoming more of an eyesore and creating a smaller and nicely 

designed building with more green space. 

Commissioner Pearson stated he supports this nicely designed project and cautioned the City 

against imposing restrictions that do not apply to the other four banks located within one square 

block of the subject site. He stated he likes the proposal and hopes construction starts very soon. 

Commissioner Crowder made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pearson, to recommend 

approval of two design standards deviations, a CUP to allow a drive-thru banking facility, and a 

variance for the drive-thru facility to construct a new 2,700 sq. ft. bank with three drive-thru 

lanes at 1101 Wayzata Boulevard E, and direct staff to prepare a Planning Report and 

Recommendation with appropriate findings for review and adoption at the next Planning 

Commission meeting with additional conditions as follows: 

1. Holding discussions on changing the color of the steel panels and window sills; 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

PC070212 - 11 

2. Holding discussions on the landscaping of the southwest corner so one party is responsible 

for installation and maintenance; 

3. Holding discussions on the possibility of eliminating the two northeasterly parking stalls to 

create larger green space; 

4. Utility Superintendent, City Engineer, and Parks Department recommendations as contained 

in Section 4; 

5. Adding trees along the south property line parallel with Wayzata Boulevard; 

6. Adding a tree to the southwest corner; and, 

7. Holding discussions on modifications to the tower. 

The motion passed 4/0. 

City Planner Gadow stated he will draft the Planning Commission Report and Recommendation 

for consideration and formal adoption at the July 16, 2012, meeting and pursuant to approval, it 

will be scheduled for City Council consideration at its meeting of August 9, 2012. 

AGENDA ITEM 3. Other Items 

a. Review of Development Activities 

City Planner Gadow stated the July 16, 2012, agenda will include the Planning Commission 

report and Recommendation for the TCF Bank application and possibly an application for 

several side yard setback variances for 143 Huntington. Staff continues to work on the cellular 

tower ordinance and drafting conservation district language. Acting Chair Gonzalez asked about 

the variance ordinance. City Planner Gadow stated a formal public hearing will be scheduled, 

probably in August. 

b. Other Items 

City Planner Gadow stated the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) is holding a Workshop with 

the City Council before its regular meeting of July 3, 2012, and presenting its annual report 

during the regular meeting. The next HPB meeting is July 10, 2012, at 7 p.m. 

AGENDA ITEM 4. Adjournment. 

There being no further business, Commissioner Pearson made a motion, seconded by 

Commissioner Babcock, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Carla Wirth 

TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 

�� 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 



JULY 16, 2012 

AGENDA ITEM 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Approval of Minutes. 

Acting Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

PC071612 - 1 

Present at roll call were Commissioners: Anderson, Babcock, Crowder, Gonzalez, Iverson, and 

Pearson. Absent and excused was: Chair Wock. City Planner Gadow and Council Liaison 

Bader were also present. 

Commissioner Gonzalez requested the following corrections: Page 4, Line 9, “Minnetonka 

Boulevard and Lake Street. Page 7, Line 12, “Acting City Chair.” 

Commissioner Gonzalez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Crowder, to approve the 

July 2, 2012, meeting minutes as amended above. The motion passed 5/0/1 (Anderson). 

Acting Chair Anderson reordered the agenda to next consider Item 4a. 

AGENDA ITEM 4. Other Items 

�� 

a. Review and Adoption of Planning Commission Report and Recommendation on 

1101 Wayzata Boulevard – TCF Bank Application 

City Planner Gadow presented the Report and Recommendation on 1101 Wayzata Boulevard 

(TCF Bank application) per the Planning Commission’s direction and conditions discussed on 

July 2, 2012. He noted a question was raised whether the Report and Recommendation should 

reflect the voting tally and signature of Acting Chair Gonzalez since Chair Wock and Acting 

Chair Anderson had been absent. 

Commissioner Pearson stated he raised that question because if he had not attended the 

evidentiary hearing when findings of fact were determined, he would not feel comfortable voting 

on the Report and Recommendation. 

Acting Chair Anderson stated she planned to abstain from the vote since she did not attend the 

July 2, 2012, meeting or participate in that discussion. 

Commissioner Babcock referenced the language in Section 4, Recommendation, A-D, indicating 

“The Applicant shall consider…” She stated the Planning Commission was not being passive on 

the issues of using a color other than white metal or the requirement for additional landscaping 

and suggested the language be changed to indicate “The Applicant shall …” 

City Planner Gadow explained the concern is that some conditions of approval are items that the 

ordinance is not designed to require. The issue of color is not an item within the design 

standards so the Planning Commission and/or City Council cannot mandate a particular color. 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC071612 - 2 

The wording is intended to indicate it is a strong recommendation that the applicant change the 

color but it cannot be mandated. 

Commissioner Babcock noted the City has mandated the color of building awnings and if the 

Planning Commission had not been able to change the color, she would not have voted to use 

white metal all the way up in the tower. Instead, she would have asked for brick. 

City Planner Gadow noted the applicant had agreed during the meeting to do these things going 

forward so the Report and Recommendation could be revised to add: “The applicant has agreed 

to said condition.” This option would address the ordinance language and acknowledge the 

applicant has already agreed. 

Commissioner Crowder stated when an applicant is asking for a variance (flexibility) he would 

ask what prevents the Planning Commission from asking for something in return, such as the use 

of a different colored building material. City Planner Gadow explained the Planning 

Commission can add conditions but it has to relate specifically to the request being made. In this 

case, the design standards do not allow the Planning Commission to dictate the color but it can 

ask the applicant to consider a different color. City Planner Gadow offered several examples and 

explained it is a very fine line to request things not tied to the actual variance request. 

Commissioner Crowder stated he views the recent change in the variance standards to be very 

liberal and benefit the applicant; however, felt there must be some “give and take.” If the 

Planning Commission is not allowed to request things that would improve the project, he will 

say “no” more often. Commissioner Crowder requested a legal opinion on the ability of the 

Planning Commission to require the applicant to do certain things. 

City Planner Gadow clarified he is not saying the Planning Condition cannot place conditions, 

but it needs to be careful in how it is done because it cannot ask for something that is not related 

to the specific request. 

Commissioner Gonzalez read statute language indicating: “The board of governing body as the 

case may be may impose conditions in granting the variance. A condition must be directly 

related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.” She 

noted this does not prevent the Planning Commission from asking the applicant to agree to more 

landscaping or other things to address concerns. In this case, the applicant agreed to change the 

color and the problem can be solved with the language proposed by City Planner Gadow to add: 

“The applicant has agreed to said condition.” 

Commissioner Pearson stated it seems the variance standard is to be an objective standard and it 

is not a negotiation. He did not think the Planning Commission should get involved in a 

negotiation of “we’ll do this if you do that.” Commissioner Pearson agreed it would be nice to 

do that but it sounds dangerous to get involved in “horse trading.” He supported either granting 

because the request meets standards or not granting because it does not meet standards. 

Commissioner Gonzalez stated there is nothing wrong with requesting improvement to the 

project, as the Planning Commission did with Indian Mound, which were well received, 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

�� 

PC071612 - 3 

incorporated into the design, and resulted in a better product. She stated she was also troubled 

by language indicating “shall consider” and supported language that is more firm since the 

applicant had volunteered to do it. 

Acting Chair Anderson stated she is hearing the Planning Commissioners saying conditions were 

placed and based on those conditions, it then made a recommendation for approval believing 

those conditions would move forward. The concern is that the applicant may not carry through 

in the final hour because the language only requires them to “consider.” 

City Planner Gadow noted another potential is that the City Attorney can say that condition 

cannot be placed. 

Acting Chair Anderson agreed with the need for an opinion from the City Attorney. She stated if 

the Planning Commission cannot use stronger language and has to place conditions in direct 

proportion, then it may need to consider more strict or specific design standards so there is some 

“leg” to stand on. 

Commissioner Babcock stated she is talking about the color of the metal and noted the Planning 

Commission allowed this applicant to not use brick all the way up on the tower, which is against 

the design guidelines. The Planning Commission agreed and in return the applicant said they 

would not use white colored metal. Commissioner Babcock restated if she had known the 

Planning Commission could not insist on a different color than white, she would have insisted on 

the use of brick on the tower on this building, which is located on a major corner of Wayzata. 

City Planner Gadow indicated that adding: “The applicant has agreed to said condition” will 

codify those conditions and address that concern. 

Acting Chair Anderson asked staff to schedule this topic for discussion at a future workshop. 

Commissioner Babcock stated Condition D, is misstated and her intent was to add two additional 

shade trees between the queuing line and the sidewalk on Wayzata Boulevard. 

Commissioner Gonzalez suggested a revision to Section 4, Recommendation, Condition F.1.b., 

to indicate: “Sewer: The sewer service to existing building on N.E. corner to private sewer line 

out to CR 101 N. Needs to be televised to determine condition and applicant shall comply with 

the recommendation of the City staff.” 

Commissioner Gonzalez suggested deleting Section 4, Recommendations, Condition F.2.a.: 

“Should examine the potential of a right-in-right-out configuration onto Central Avenue for 

channelization with both property owners.” She felt this matter was not part of this application 

but something the City should do. City Planner Gadow clarified the City cannot do it because it 

is on private property so the condition suggests the two property owners should look at it in 

consultation with the City. Commissioner Gonzalez then suggested that Condition F.2.a. remain 

but be reworded to start with: “The Planning Commission makes a strong recommendation” 

instead of starting with “Should.” 

CC_08092012 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

�� 

PC071612 - 4 

Commissioner Gonzalez suggested the addition of Section 4, Recommendations, Condition F.4. 

to indicate: “Illuminated signs facing residential uses shall have a dimmer so luminance can be 

adjusted, if needed, to protect adjacent residential homes.” The Planning Commission agreed 

with this suggestion. 

Commissioner Crowder made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Babcock, to adopt the 

Planning Commission Report and Recommendation of Approval of Project Design, Conditional 

Use Permit, and Variance at 1101 Wayzata Boulevard (TCF Bank), with the changes as outlined. 

The motion passed 4/0/2 (Commissioner Iverson and Acting Chair Anderson). 

AGENDA ITEM 2. Regular Agenda Public Hearing Items: 

a. 143 Huntington Avenue S. – The Broadway Group, LLC 

i. Sideyard Setback Variances 

ii. Variance for Additional ½ Story 

iii. Impervious Surface Variance 

City Planner Gadow presented the development application of The Broadway Group, LLC for 

property located at 143 Huntington Avenue South requesting variances from the ten-foot 

sideyard setback minimum and the 35% impervious surface maximum to allow the construction 

of a 415 sq. ft. addition to the existing property. The property is legally non-conforming due to 

the existing lot size of 6,882 sq. ft., which is less than the 9,000 sq. ft. minimum, and existing lot 

width of 40 feet, which is less than the 60-foot minimum. 

City Planner Gadow displayed an aerial view of the subject site, noting surrounding property 

uses, an existing conditions survey, annotated survey defining the existing property line and area 

of net-for-net land swaps so the setbacks work more efficiently. It was noted that under the 

2007-2008 approval, access was provided under common ownership through a shared easement; 

however, since it is now under separate ownership there is challenge to access the property. The 

reason for the land swap is to exchange property to create sole access for 137 Huntington 

Avenue S. and to work with the City to extend the back alleyway to create rear access to the 

proposed garage for 143 Huntington Avenue S. It was noted that transfer A and B equals 193 

square feet. 

Commissioner Babcock asked what is the reason for the land swap. City Planner Gadow 

explained it is to clear up the double access issue. 

Commissioner Babcock stated there has been a shared driveway since 1915 so this easement 

should be written into the contract. City Planner Gadow advised he found no recorded shared 

driveway easement in the documentation of the previous application in 2007 or by the previous 

property owner. 

Commissioner Gonzalez asked if the new property line results in a “bulge” that would block a 

straight-line access into the existing garage for the next-door property. City Planner Gadow 

indicated that property owner is comfortable with the proposed lot line adjustment. 

CC_08092012 



July 2, 2012 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF PROJECT DESIGN, 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 1101 WAYZATA BLVD 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Approve Project Design with Deviations 

2. Approve Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru Banking Facility (Section 

801.76.5.C) 

3. Approve Variance for Length of Stacking Distance for Drive-Thru Lane (Section 

801.76.5.C.4.a) 

REPORT 

Section 1. BACKGROUND 

�� 

1.1 Development Application. TCF Bank (the “Applicant”) has submitted a development 

application (the “Application”, depicted in Attachment A) requesting approval of a 

design standards review (the “Project Design”), a conditional use permit to allow a 

drive-thru banking facility (the “Drive-Thru CUP”), and a variance for the number of 

car stacking for the drive-thru facility (the “Variance”) to construct a new 2,700 SF 

bank with three (3) drive-thru lanes (the “Project”) at 1101 Wayzata Blvd E. (the 

“Property”). 

1.2 Property. The property identification numbers and owners for the Property involved 

in the proposed Application is as follows: 

1101 Wayzata Blvd E. 05-117-22-23-0020 C & H Investment Co 

CC_08092012 



�� 

PC Report and Recommendation Page 2 

1.3 Land Use. The Property is located within the C-2 Shopping Center District, as 

defined in Section 801.76 of the Wayzata Zoning Ordinance. The Property is 

guided for Mixed Use Commercial in the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan. 

1.4 Notice. Pursuant to Section 805.14.B, notice of a public hearing on the 

Development Application was published in the Sun Sailor on June 21, 2012. A 

copy of the notice was mailed to all property owners located with 350 feet of the 

Property on June 22, 2012. 

Section 2. STANDARDS 

2.1 Design Standards. The design of all new buildings and exterior improvements to 

the public side of nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings in Wayzata which 

clearly alter the appearance of a structure are subject to the review and approval of 

the Wayzata Planning Commission and City Council. City Code Section 801.09; 

Wayzata Design Standards Section 1.5. The relevant design criteria for the 

“Wayzata Blvd District” are as reflected in the Design Critique attached to this 

Report as Attachment B 

There are two (2) deviations requested from the design standards for this project: 

A. Section 801.09.8.4 – Percentage of Façade Transparency – 50% windows on 


B. Section 801.09.11.1.G – Percent of Accent Materials – More than 10% steel on 

building facades 



A. Compatibility. The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, and 

functional plan of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the existing 

nearby commercial and residential buildings, and shall not cause impairment in 

property values, or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance 

of the site. 

B. Vehicle Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a 

minimum of conflict with through traffic movements. 

C. Surfacing. The entire area other than that portion occupied by buildings or 

structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust 

and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City. 

D. Drive-through Windows. Service windows shall be allowed if the following 

additional criteria are satisfied: 

1. Stacking. Not less than one hundred eighty (180) feet of segregated 


CC_08092012 



�� 


2. Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to 

control traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and green 

area on the site. 

3. Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for 

stacking of automobiles. 

4. Noise. The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window shall be 

designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and 

communication noises, emissions, and headlight glare upon adjacent 

premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize 

maneuverability of vehicles on the site. Levels of noise, light, and air 

quality shall occur and be measured at property lines and shall satisfy 

established state regulations. 

5. Hours. Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize the 

effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any 

existing neighboring residential uses. 

6. Green Strip. At any common boundary shared with a residential district, a 

strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened so as 

to create an effective visual and sound buffer and separation of uses. 

7. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered 

and satisfactorily met. 

2.3 Conditional Use Permit Standards (Section 801.04). In addition to the above 

conditions, the provisions of Section 801.04.2.F must considered and satisfactorily 

met. Section 801.04.2.F requires City Council to consider possible adverse effects 

of the proposed conditional use. Their judgment shall be based upon (but not 

limited to) the following factors: 

A. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the 


B. The proposed use’s compatibility with present and future uses of the area. 

C. The proposed use’s conformity with all performance standards contained 

herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 

D. The propose use’s effect on the area in which it is proposed. 

E. The proposed use’s impact upon property values in the area in which it is 

developed. 

F. Traffic generated by the proposed use is in relation to capabilities of streets 


G. The proposed use’s impact upon existing public services and facilities 

including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and the City’s service capacity. 

CC_08092012 



�� 




significantly change the standards under which cities consider variance requests. 

This state law change supersedes the standards presently found in Wayzata’s 

Zoning Ordinance and until such is amended to reflect the state law changes, the 

state law should be followed to the extent it differs from Wayzata’s Zoning 

Ordinance. The amended Section 462.357, Subd. 6., provides the following items 

for evaluating variance requests: 

A. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general 



B. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that 


C. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 



D. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and 


E. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 

F. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 

G. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct 


H. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in 



Section 3. FINDINGS 

The Wayzata Planning Commission has reviewed the Application and makes the following 

findings: 

3.1 Project Design Review: 

A. The Project Design as proposed in the Application meets the criteria of the 

applicable Design Standards as described in Attachment A, with the 

exception of the Design Deviation request for percentage of façade 

transparency and percentage of accent material. 

B. The design deviations to allow less than the required façade transparency 

and more than the allowed accent material are recommended for approval 

based on the findings that the Project will have a positive effect on the area 

CC_08092012 



�� 


in which it is proposed due to the use of high quality materials and the 

Project is the remodeling of an existing building which largely otherwise 

conforms to the Design Standards. 

3.2 Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru Banking Facility: 

A. Compatibility: The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, 

and functional plan of the building and site is not dissimilar to the existing 

nearby commercial buildings, as the proposed building is a smaller, one story 

building, with brick and other building materials. The project would remodel 

an older building on the site. There are other drive-thru banking facilities in 

the adjacent area, including at Anchor Bank (to the west of the Property), 

Wells Fargo Bank (to the west of the Property), and BMO Harris Bank (to the 

south and east of the Property). 

B. Vehicle Access: The vehicular access points shall be limited to only the 

existing curb cuts which service the existing site. The Applicant’s traffic 

report and the City’s review of the traffic report indicate that the proposed 

drive-thru layout would function without creating traffic impacts or conflicts 

with through traffic movements. 

C. Surfacing: The Project site is surfaced with grass and landscape materials 

and asphalt to control dust and drainage, in addition to erosion control 

measures. 

D. Drive-through Windows: A service window is proposed as part of the Project: 

i. Stacking: The Project does not contain one hundred eighty (180) feet of 

stacking distance for each lane, and includes a Variance request for this 

requirement. The Applicant’s traffic report and the City’s review of the 

traffic report indicate that the proposed layout provides adequate stacking 

area for eight (8) vehicles at peak demand time. 

ii. Traffic Control: The stacking lane and its access are designed to control 

traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and green area on 

the site. The stacking area for cars utilizing the drive-thru is located on 

the Property and is delineated. 

iii. Use of Street: No part of the public street or boulevard is used for 

stacking of automobiles. The stacking lane and site circulation occur on 

the property and the adjacent Colonial Square property. 

iv. Noise: The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window are 

located on the eastern side of the building under a covered overhang, 

which minimizes noise and light to adjacent properties. Future monitoring 

of noise and light from the drive-thru would be a condition of approval. 


effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any 

existing neighboring residential uses. This shall be a condition of 

approval. 

vi. Green Strip. The property does not have a common boundary shared 

with a residential district. However, the Project does propose additional 

landscaping around the public perimeter of the building at the Wayzata 

Blvd and Central Ave intersection. 

CC_08092012 



�� 


vii. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered 


3.3 Variance from Stacking Distance Requirement. 

A. The Variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of 

the ordinance and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Property 

is guided for Mixed Use Commercial use and zoned for Shopping Center 

uses. The proposed banking and drive-thru use is an allowed use with CUP 

in this District. 

B. The Applicant has established that there is a practical difficulty in complying 

with a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The Property’s lot size is 

smaller than the minimum for the C-2 Zoning District. Due to the existing 

configuration of the lot, the Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft to 114.6 ft of 

stacking distance on the Property for each of the lanes proposed. 

C. The Applicant’s Variance request meets the practical difficulty and 

reasonableness standards. The Property is currently guided and zoned for 

commercial use, and the Applicant desires to propose a new drive-thru 

banking facility. 

D. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property 

and not created by the landowner. The Property is currently non-conforming 

as it relates to lot size. Due to the existing configuration of the lot, the 

Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft to 114.6 ft of stacking distance on the 

Property for each of the lanes proposed. 

E. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, as there are 

other drive-thru banking facilities in the adjacent area. 

F. Economic considerations alone are not the basis for the practical difficulty in 

this Application. The basis for the practical difficulty is related to the existing 

configuration of the Property. 

G. Any conditions attached to the approval motion shall be directly related to the 

Application. 

Section 4. RECOMMENDATION 

4.1 Based on the Findings of this Report and Recommendation, the Planning 

Commission recommends that the request for approval of the Project Design, 

Conditional Use Permit, and Variance, as set forth in the Development Application, 

be APPROVED with following conditions: 

A. The Applicant shall consider removing two (2) parking spaces adjacent to the 

northeast corner of the Property for the purpose of providing additional 

landscaping and snow storage capacity. The Applicant has agreed to this 

condition. 

CC_08092012 



�� 


B. The Applicant shall consider an alternative color, other than white, for the 

window sills, and the steel panels utilized for the tower element and the 

drive-up canopy on the northern façade of the building. The Applicant has 

agreed to this condition. 

C. The Applicant shall consider modifications to the tower element of the 

building to soften the structure, and more closely match the character of the 

adjacent Colonial Square structures. The Applicant has agreed to this 

condition. 

D. The Applicant shall consider the additional landscaping at the southwest and 

southeast corners of the Property, including the addition of Alpine Currents 

and Boulevard Lindens for screening purposes. Specifically, the Applicant 

shall consider adding two (2) to three (3) additional shade trees on the 

southeast corner of the Property, between the queuing lane and sidewalk on 

Wayzata Blvd. The Applicant has agreed to this condition. 

E. The Applicant shall discuss with the City the potential for cooperation and 

coordination of landscaping responsibilities at the southwest corner of the 

Property, adjacent to the City Right-of-Way. The Applicant has agreed to this 

condition. 

F. The Applicant shall install dimmers on illuminated signs facing residential 

uses, so luminance can be adjusted, if needed, to protect adjacent residential 

homes. The Applicant has agreed to this condition. 

G. The Applicant shall comply with the following comments from City Staff: 

1. Utility Superintendent: 

a. Water: The 1-1/4 water service to this building is in poor shape, 

and may need to be replaced. 

b. Sewer: The sewer service to existing building on N.E. corner to 

private sewer line out to CR 101 N. Needs to be televised to 

determine condition and the Applicant shall comply with the 

recommendation of the City Staff. 

2 City Engineer: 

a. The Planning Commission makes a strong recommendation that 

the Applicant examine the potential of a right-in-right out 

configuration onto Central Ave for channelization with the adjacent 

property owner. 

b. The existing water service must be abandoned at the main. 

c. Connection to the twelve inch (12”) water main is deep (approx. 

12-15 ft). 

3 Parks Department: 

CC_08092012 



�� 


a. Need to follow proper tree protection measures. The tree 

contractor must be licensed in Wayzata. 

Adopted by the Wayzata Planning Commission this ______ day of _________, 2012. 

Voting In Favor: Babcock, Crowder, Gonzalez, Pearson 

Voting Against: None 

Abstaining (Due to Excused Absence at Previous Meeting): Anderson, Iverson 

Acting Chair, Planning Commission 

CC_08092012 



�� 


Attachment A 

Applicant’s Submittals 

CC_08092012 



�� 


Attachment B 

Project Design Criteria 

CC_08092012 


RESOLUTION NO. 35-2012 

RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECT DESIGN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND 

VARIANCE AT 1101 WAYZATA BLVD E. 

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Wayzata, Minnesota as follows: 

Section 1. BACKGROUND 

�� 

1.1 Development Application. TCF Bank (the “Applicant”) has submitted a 

development application (the “Application”, depicted in Attachment B) requesting 

approval of a design standards review (the “Project Design”), a conditional use 

permit to allow a drive-thru banking facility (the “Drive-Thru CUP”), and a 

variance for the number of car stacking for the drive-thru facility (the “Variance”) 

to construct a new 2,700 SF bank with three (3) drive-thru lanes (the “Project”) at 

1101 Wayzata Blvd E. (the “Property”). 

1.2 Legal Description. The address, property identification number and owner of the 

property included in the Application is: 

1101 Wayzata Blvd E 05-117-22-23-0020 C & H Investment Co 

1.3 Land Use. The Property is located within the C-2 Shopping Center District, as 

defined in Section 801.76 of the Wayzata Zoning Ordinance. The Property is 

guided for Mixed Use Commercial in the Wayzata Comprehensive Plan. 

1.4 Notice. Notice of a public hearing on the Application was published in the Sun 

Sailor on June 21, 2012. A copy of the notice was also mailed to all property 

owners located within 350 feet of the Property on June 22, 2012. 

1.5 Planning Commission Action. The Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant 

and held a public hearing at their July 2, 2012 regular meeting. One (1) 

individual spoke in favor of the Application. The Planning Commission was 

generally in favor of the proposal, on the condition that a number of conditions of 

approval were met relating to some design modifications and additional 

landscaping. The Applicant has agreed to these conditions. The Planning 

Commission voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed (with three (3) 

Commissioners absent and excused) to direct staff to draft a Report and 

Recommendation for approval of the Project with conditions. The Commission 

reviewed and formally adopted the Planning Commission Report and 

Recommendation on the Application at their July 16, 2012 meeting on a vote of 

four (4) in favor and zero (0) opposed, and two (2) abstaining due to excused 

absence at the previous meeting. 

CC_08092012 



�� 

Resolution No. 35-2012 Page 2 

Section 2. STANDARDS 

2.1 Design Standards. The design of all new buildings and exterior improvements to 

the public side of nonresidential and/or multifamily buildings in Wayzata which 

clearly alter the appearance of a structure are subject to the review and approval 

of the Wayzata Planning Commission and City Council. City Code Section 

801.09; Wayzata Design Standards Section 1.5. The relevant design criteria for 

the “Wayzata Blvd District” are as reflected in the Design Critique attached to this 

Report as Attachment A 

There are two (2) deviations requested from the design standards for this project: 

A. Section 801.09.8.4 – Percentage of Façade Transparency – 50% windows on 


B. Section 801.09.11.1.G – Percent of Accent Materials – More than 10% steel 

on building facades 



A. Compatibility. The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, 

and functional plan of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the 

existing nearby commercial and residential buildings, and shall not cause 

impairment in property values, or constitute a blighting influence within a 

reasonable distance of the site. 

B. Vehicle Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a 

minimum of conflict with through traffic movements. 

C. Surfacing. The entire area other than that portion occupied by buildings or 

structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust 

and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City. 

D. Drive-through Windows. Service windows shall be allowed if the following 

additional criteria are satisfied: 

1. Stacking. Not less than one hundred eighty (180) feet of segregated 


2. Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to 

control traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and 

green area on the site. 

3. Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used 

for stacking of automobiles. 

4. Noise. The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window shall 

be designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile 

and communication noises, emissions, and headlight glare upon 

adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize 

CC_08092012 



�� 


maneuverability of vehicles on the site. Levels of noise, light, and air 

quality shall occur and be measured at property lines and shall satisfy 

established state regulations. 

5. Hours. Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize 

the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any 

existing neighboring residential uses. 

6. Green Strip. At any common boundary shared with a residential 

district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and 

screened so as to create an effective visual and sound buffer and 

separation of uses. 

7. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered 


2.3 Conditional Use Permit Standards (Section 801.04). In addition to the above 

conditions, the provisions of Section 801.04.2.F must considered and 

satisfactorily met. Section 801.04.2.F requires City Council to consider possible 

adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Their judgment shall be based 

upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 

1. The proposed action in relation to the specific policies and provisions of 

the official City Comprehensive Plan. 

2. The proposed use’s compatibility with present and future uses of the area. 

3. The proposed use’s conformity with all performance standards contained 

herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 

4. The propose use’s effect on the area in which it is proposed. 

5. The proposed use’s impact upon property values in the area in which it is 

developed. 

6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is in relation to capabilities of 

streets serving the property. 

7. The proposed use’s impact upon existing public services and facilities 

including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and the City’s service 

capacity. 



significantly change the standards under which cities consider variance requests. 

This state law change supersedes the standards presently found in Wayzata’s 

Zoning Ordinance and until such is amended to reflect the state law changes, the 

state law should be followed to the extent it differs from Wayzata’s Zoning 

CC_08092012 



�� 


Ordinance. The amended Section 462.357, Subd. 6., provides the following items 

for evaluating variance requests: 

A. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general 

purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent 

with the comprehensive plan. 

B. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes 

that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 

C. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 




and not created by the landowner. 

E. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 

F. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 

G. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct 


H. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in 



Section 3. FINDINGS 

The City Council of the City of Wayzata hereby confirms and memorializes that 

the Project Design, Drive-Thru CUP, and Variance depicted in the Application 

meets the applicable requirements of Wayzata’s Design Standards and Zoning 

Ordinance, based upon the following findings of fact made on the record (as well 

as all Application materials, staff reports, public comment presented at the 

hearing, and the Recommendation of the Planning Commission): 

3.1 Project Design Review: 

A. The Project Design as proposed in the Application meets the criteria of the 

applicable Design Standards as described in Attachment A, with the 

exception of the Design Deviation request for percentage of façade 

transparency and percentage of accent material. 

B. The design deviations to allow less than the required façade transparency 

and more than the allowed accent material are recommended for approval 

based on the findings that the Project will have a positive effect on the 

area in which it is proposed due to the use of high quality materials and 

the Project is the remodeling of an existing building which largely 

otherwise conforms to the Design Standards. 

CC_08092012 



�� 


3.2 Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru Banking Facility: 

A. Compatibility: The architectural appearance, scale, construction 

materials, and functional plan of the building and site is not dissimilar to 

the existing nearby commercial buildings, as the proposed building is a 

smaller, one story building, with brick and other building materials. The 

project would remodel an older building on the site. There are other drivethru 

banking facilities in the adjacent area, including at Anchor Bank (to 

the west of the Property), Wells Fargo Bank (to the west of the Property), 

and BMO Harris Bank (to the south and east of the Property). 

B. Vehicle Access: The vehicular access points shall be limited to only the 

existing curb cuts which service the existing site. The Applicant’s traffic 

report and the City’s review of the traffic report indicate that the proposed 

drive-thru layout would function without creating traffic impacts or conflicts 

with through traffic movements. 

C. Surfacing: The Project site is surfaced with grass and landscape 

materials and asphalt to control dust and drainage, in addition to erosion 

control measures. 

D. Drive-through Windows: A service window is proposed as part of the 

Project: 

i. Stacking: The Project does not contain one hundred eighty (180) feet 

of stacking distance for each lane, and includes a Variance request for 

this requirement. The Applicant’s traffic report and the City’s review of 

the traffic report indicate that the proposed layout provides adequate 

stacking area for eight (8) vehicles at peak demand time. 

ii. Traffic Control: The stacking lane and its access are designed to 

control traffic in a manner to protect the pedestrians, buildings and 

green area on the site. The stacking area for cars utilizing the drivethru 

is located on the Property and is delineated. 

iii. Use of Street: No part of the public street or boulevard is used for 

stacking of automobiles. The stacking lane and site circulation occur 

on the property and the adjacent Colonial Square property. 

iv. Noise: The stacking lane, service intercom, and service window are 

located on the eastern side of the building under a covered overhang, 

which minimizes noise and light to adjacent properties. Future 

monitoring of noise and light from the drive-thru would be a condition of 

approval. 

v. Hours. Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize 

the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare upon any 

existing neighboring residential uses. This shall be a condition of 

approval. 

vi. Green Strip. The property does not have a common boundary shared 

with a residential district. However, the Project does propose 

CC_08092012 



�� 


additional landscaping around the public perimeter of the building at 

the Wayzata Blvd and Central Ave intersection. 

vii. The provisions of Section 801.04.2.F of this Ordinance are considered 


3.3 Variance from Stacking Distance Requirement. 

A. The Variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent 

of the ordinance and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 

Property is guided for Mixed Use Commercial use and zoned for Shopping 

Center uses. The proposed banking and drive-thru use is an allowed use 

with CUP in this District. 

B. The Applicant has established that there is a practical difficulty in 

complying with a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The Property’s lot 

size is smaller than the minimum for the C-2 Zoning District. Due to the 

existing configuration of the lot, the Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft to 

114.6 ft of stacking distance on the Property for each of the lanes 

proposed. 

C. The Applicant’s Variance request meets the practical difficulty and 

reasonableness standards. The Property is currently guided and zoned 

for commercial use, and the Applicant desires to propose a new drive-thru 

banking facility. 


and not created by the landowner. The Property is currently nonconforming 

as it relates to lot size. Due to the existing configuration of the 

lot, the Applicant can only provide 106.6 ft to 114.6 ft of stacking distance 

on the Property for each of the lanes proposed. 

E. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, as there 

are other drive-thru banking facilities in the adjacent area. 

F. Economic considerations alone are not the basis for the practical difficulty 

in this Application. The basis for the practical difficulty is related to the 

existing configuration of the Property. 

G. Any conditions attached to the approval motion shall be directly related to 

the Application. 

Section 4. CITY COUNCIL ACTION 

4.1 Based on the Findings of this Resolution, the request for approval of the Project 

Design, Drive-Thru CUP, and Variance, as set forth in the Application, is hereby 

APPROVED subject to all of the following conditions (failure to comply with any 

one of these conditions shall result in the revocation of this approval): 

A. The Applicant shall consider removing two (2) parking spaces adjacent to 

the northeast corner of the Property for the purpose of providing additional 

CC_08092012 



�� 


landscaping and snow storage capacity. The Applicant has agreed to this 

condition. 

B. The Applicant shall consider an alternative color, other than white, for the 

window sills, and the steel panels utilized for the tower element and the 

drive-up canopy on the northern façade of the building. The Applicant has 

agreed to this condition. 

C. The Applicant shall consider modifications to the tower element of the 

building to soften the structure, and more closely match the character of 

the adjacent Colonial Square structures. The Applicant has agreed to this 

condition. 

D. The Applicant shall consider the additional landscaping at the southwest 

and southeast corners of the Property, including the addition of Alpine 

Currents and Boulevard Lindens for screening purposes. Specifically, the 

Applicant shall consider adding two (2) to three (3) additional shade trees 

on the southeast corner of the Property, between the queuing lane and 

sidewalk on Wayzata Blvd. The Applicant has agreed to this condition. 

E. The Applicant shall discuss with the City the potential for cooperation and 

coordination of landscaping responsibilities at the southwest corner of the 

Property, adjacent to the City Right-of-Way. The Applicant has agreed to 

this condition. 

F. The Applicant shall install dimmers on illuminated signs facing residential 

uses, so luminance can be adjusted, if needed, to protect adjacent 

residential homes. The Applicant has agreed to this condition. 

G. The Applicant shall provide evidence to the City Attorney that the egress 

and ingress, and parking easements are in full force and effect for the 

duration of this project. 

H. The Applicant shall comply with the following comments from City Staff: 

1. Utility Superintendent: 

a. Water: The 1-1/4 water service to this building is in poor shape, 

and may need to be replaced. 

b. Sewer: The sewer service to existing building on N.E. corner to 

private sewer line out to CR 101 N. Needs to be televised to 

determine condition and the Applicant shall comply with the 

recommendation of the City Staff. 

2 City Engineer: 

a. The Planning Commission makes a strong recommendation that 

the Applicant examine the potential of a right-in-right out 

CC_08092012 



�� 


configuration onto Central Ave for channelization with the 

adjacent property owner. 

b. The existing water service must be abandoned at the main. 

c. Connection to the twelve inch (12”) water main is deep (approx. 

12-15 ft). 

3 Parks Department: 

1. Need to follow proper tree protection measures. The tree 

contractor must be licensed in Wayzata. 

Adopted by the Wayzata City Council this ______ day of _______, 2012. 

ATTEST: 

City Manager Allan Orsen 



Seconded by: 



Abstained: 

Absent: 

Resolution adopted. 

Mayor Ken Willcox 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by 

the City Council of the City of Wayzata, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on 

_________________________, 2012. 

CC_08092012 



�� 


__________________________________ 


SEAL 

CC_08092012 



�� 


Attachment A 

Staff Design Critique 

CC_08092012 



�� 


Attachment B 

Project Submittals 

CC_08092012 


PROFESSIONAL�SERVICES�AGREEMENT� 

BETWEEN� 

CITY�OF�WAYZATA� 

AND�� 

SAINT�PAUL�RIVERFRONT�CORPORATION� 

� 

� THIS�AGREEMENT�made�and�entered�into�by�and�between,�City�of�Wayzata�having�an�office�at�600�Rice�Street� 

East,�Wayzata,�MN,�55391�hereinafter�referred�to�as�the�“CLIENT,”�and�Saint�Paul�Riverfront�Corporation,�having�an�office� 

at�25�W.�6 th �Street,�Saint�Paul,�MN,�55102,�hereinafter�referred�to�as�“SPRC.”� 

� 

� WITNESSETH:� 

� 

� WHEREAS,�the�CLIENT�requires�professional�services�in�connection�with�the�Process�Manager�for�Lakefront�Plan� 

hereinafter�referred�to�as�the�“Project”;�and�� 

� 

� WHEREAS,�SPRC�can�provide�professional�services�needed�in�such�a�Project;�and� 

� 

� NOW,�THEREFORE,�in�consideration�of�the�mutual�covenants�and�considerations�hereinafter�contained,�it�is�agreed� 

by�and�between�the�CLIENT�and�SPRC�as�follows:� 

� 

1. SCOPE�OF�SERVICES� 

� 

The�services�to�be�performed�by�SPRC�are�described�in�Attachment�“A”�attached�hereto�and�made�a�part�of�this� 

Agreement.� 

� 

2. CLIENT’S�RESPONSIBILITIES�� 

� 

The�CLIENT�agrees�to�provide�SPRC�with�the�complete�information�concerning�the�Project�upon�which�SPRC�shall� 

have�a�reasonable�right�to�rely�in�the�accuracy�thereof�and�that�such�information�does�not�infringe�upon�the�right� 

of�any�third�party.��The�CLIENT�will�perform�the�following�services:� 

� 

A.� CLIENT�shall�pay�SPRC�as�provided�herein�and�shall�have�such�other�duties�as�set�forth�herein.� 

� 

B.�� CLIENT� shall� be� the� general� administrator� and� shall� facilitate� the� exchange� of� information� to� SPRC,� as� 

necessary�for�the�coordination�of�their�respective�services.� 

� 

C.�� CLIENT� will� use� all� reasonable� efforts� to� enable� SPRC� to� enter� upon� public� and� private� property� as� 

required�for�SPRC�to�perform�its�services�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

D.� CLIENT�will�give�prompt�written�notice�to�SPRC�when�the�CLIENT�observes�or�otherwise�becomes�aware�of� 

any�fact�or�issue�that�affects�the�scope,�timing�or�cost�of�the�SPRC’s�services.� 

� 

E.�� Designate� a� single� person� to� act� as� the� CLIENT’s� representative� with� respect� to� SPRC’s� service� to� be� 

performed� under� this� Agreement.��Such� person� shall� have� complete� authority� to� transmit� instructions,� 

receive�information,�and�interpret�and�define�policies�and�decisions�with�respect�to�SPRC’s�services.� 

� 

F.� CLIENT� will� provide� reasonable� efforts� to� assist� SPRC� in� securing� additional� funds� in� the� form� of� 

sponsorships,� in�kind� gifts,� grants,� and� other� resources,� to� pay� for� expenses� associated� with� Project� 

implementation.� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�1� 

CC_08092012 


� 

3. PAYMENT�TO�SPRC� 

Invoices� will� be� prepared� in� accordance� with� SPRC’s� standard� invoicing� practices� and� will� be� submitted� to� the� 

CLIENT�by�SPRC�monthly,�unless�otherwise�agreed.��The�CLIENT�will�make�undisputed�payments�no�later�than�30� 

(thirty)� days� after� receiving� SPRC’s� invoices� for� services� performed.� �If� an� invoice� is� incorrect,� defective� or� 

otherwise�improper,�the�CLIENT�will�notify�SPRC�within�10�days�of�discovering�the�error.��After�the�CLIENT�receives� 

corrected�invoice,�the�CLIENT�will�pay�SPRC�within�30�(thirty)�days�of�receipt�of�such�invoice.�� 

� 

SPRC�shall�have�the�right�to�stop�performing�services�under�this�Agreement�during�any�period�when�the�CLIENT� 

materially�breaches�its�payment�obligations,�but�only�after�giving�a�written�notice�to�the�CLIENT�describing�such� 

breach�and�stating�SPRC’s�intention�to�stop�performing�services.� 

� 

4. RATE�OF�COMPENSATION�� 

� 

SPRC�will�be�paid�for�services�performed�related�to�Project�as�outlined�in�Attachment�A,�inclusive�of�expenses.�� 

� 

For� any� “Additional� Services”� beyond� the� services� described� in� Attachment� “A”,� ordered� by� the� CLIENT� and� 

performed� by� SPRC,� the� CLIENT� will� pay� SPRC� in� accordance� with� SPRC’s� standard� hourly� billing� rates.�� 

Reimbursable�expenses�outside�the�reasonable�scope�of�the�project,�required�of�SPRC�by�CLIENT,�shall�be�invoiced� 

at�actual�cost�and�include,�but�not�limited�to,�the�costs�of�travel,�materials,�printing�and�reproduction,�supplies,� 

subcontractor�fees�and�other�project�specified�costs.��Mileage�shall�be�billed�at�a�rate�not�to�exceed�the�current�IRS� 

allowable� rate� for� business� miles.��An� amendment� to� this� Agreement� covering� the� Additional� Services� will� be� 

executed�by�both�parties�prior�to�payment�of�any�fee�over�and�above�the�amount�listed�in�Attachment�“A”.� 

� 

5.� INDEPENDENT�CONTRACTOR�� 

� 

� SPRC�is�an�Independent�Contractor.��Nothing�contained�in�this�Agreement�is�intended�or�should�be�construed�as� 

creating�the�relationship�of�co�partners�or�joint�ventures�with�the�CLIENT.��No�tenure�or�any�rights�or�benefits,� 

including� workers’� compensation,� unemployment� insurance,� medical� care,� sick� leave,� vacation� leave,� severance� 

pay,�or�other�benefits�available�to�the�CLIENT�employees,�shall�accrue�to�SPRC�or�employees�of�SPRC�performing� 

services�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

6.� RECORDS�� 

� 

� SPRC�will�maintain�accounting�records�in�accordance�with�generally�accepted�accounting�principles�and�practices.�� 

Such� records� with� respect� to� the� Project� will� be� available� for� examination� by� the� CLIENT� during� SPRC’s� normal� 

business�hours�for�a�period�of�six�(6)�years�after�SPRC’s�final�invoice�to�CLIENT.� 

� 

7.� STANDARD�OF�CARE�� 

� 

a. The�standard�of�care�for�all�professional�services�performed�or�furnished�by�SPRC�under�this�Agreement�will�be� 

the�care�and�skill�ordinarily�used�by�members�of�SPRC’s�profession�practicing�under�similar�circumstances�at� 

the� same� time� and� in� the� same� locality.� �SPRC� makes� no� warranties,� expressed� or� implied,� under� the� 

Agreement�or�otherwise,�in�connection�with�SPRC’s�service.� 

� 

b. The� CLIENT� shall� be� responsible� for,� and� SPRC� may� rely� upon,� the� accuracy� and� completeness� of� all� 

requirements,� programs,� instructions,� reports,� data,� and� other� information� furnished� by� CLIENT� to� SPRC� 

pursuant�to�this�Agreement.��SPRC�may�use�such�requirements,�reports,�data,�and�information�in�performing� 

or�furnishing�services�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

8.� TERMINATION�OF�THE�AGREEMENT�� 

� 

� Either�party�may�terminate�this�Agreement�(or�any�part�thereof),�for�any�reason�by�submitting�written�notice�of� 

termination�seven�(7)�days�prior�to�the�specified�date�of�termination�to�the�other�party�(to�the�address�written� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�2� 

CC_08092012 


above).��In�such�event,�SPRC�will�be�entitled�to�compensation�for�work�performed�up�to�the�date�of�termination� 

based�upon�the�payment�terms�of�this�Agreement.��Such�payment�will�not�exceed�the�maximum�amount�provided� 

for�by�the�terms�of�this�Agreement.� 

� 

�9.� AUTHORIZED�AGENTS� 

� 

� SPRC’s�Agent� CLIENT’s�Agent 

Name� Patrick�Seeb� 

Address� 25�W.�6 th �Street� 

� Saint�Paul,�MN�55102� 

Phone� 651.293.6861� 

FAX� 651.293.6868� 

� 

The�CLIENT�and�SPRC’s�Authorized�Agent�shall�have�authority�to�accept�or�reject�services�and/or�goods.� 

� 

10.� CONTROLLING�LAW�� 

� 

� The� Laws� of� the� State� of� Minnesota� shall� govern� all� questions� and� interpretations� concerning� the� validity� and� 

construction�of�this�Agreement�and�the�legal�relations�between�the�herein�parties�and�performance�under�it.�� 

� 

11.� OWNERSHIP�OF�MATERIALS� 

� 

All�Documents�produced�by�SPRC�are�instruments�of�service�in�respect�to�the�Project,�and�SPRC�shall�retain�an� 

ownership�and�property�interest�therein�(including�the�right�of�reuse�at�the�discretion�of�SPRC)�whether�or�not�the� 

Project�is�completed.� 

� 

The�CLIENT�may�make�and�retain�copies�of�Documents�for�use�in�connection�with�the�Project.��SPRC�grants�the� 

CLIENT�an�unlimited�license�to�use�any�documents�produced�by�SPRC�for�the�Project.��SPRC�grants�the�CLIENT�a� 

limited�license�to�use�the�documents�on�extension�of�the�Project,�and�other�projects�of�the�CLIENT�subject�to�the� 

following�limitations:��(1)�The�CLIENT�acknowledges�that�such�documents�are�not�intended�or�represented�to�be� 

suitable� for� use� on� the� Project� unless� completed� and� prepared� by� SPRC,� or� for� use� or� reuse� by� the� CLIENT,� or� 

others�on�extension�of�the�Project�or�on�any�other�project�without�written�verification�or�adaptation�by�SPRC;�(2)� 

any� such� use� or� reuse,� or� any� modification� of� the� documents� by� the� CLIENT,� without� written� verification,� 

completion,�or�adaptation�by�SPRC,�as�appropriate�for�the�specific�purpose�intended,�will�be�at�the�CLIENT’s�sole� 

risk�and�without�liability�or�legal�exposure�to�SPRC;�(3)The�CLIENT�shall�indemnify�and�hold�harmless�SPRC�from�all� 

claims,�damages,�losses�and�expense,�including�reasonable�attorneys’�fees,�arising�out�of�or�resulting�from�any�use,� 

reuse,�or�modification�by�the�CLIENT�for�extensions�of�the�Project�or�use�on�other�projects�of�the�CLIENT�without� 

written�verification,�completion,�or�adaptation�by�SPRC.� 

� 

12.�� USE�OF�ELECTRONIC�MEDIA� 

� 

a. Copies�of�Documents�that�may�be�relied�upon�by�the�CLIENT�are�limited�to�the�printed�copies�(also�known�as� 

hard�copies)�that�are�signed�or�sealed�by�SPRC.��Files�in�electronic�media�format�of�text,�data,�graphics,�or�of� 

other� types� that� are� furnished� by� SPRC� to� the� CLIENT� are� only� for� convenience� of� the� CLIENT.��Any� 

conclusion�or�information�obtained�or�derived�from�such�electronic�files�will�be�at�the�user’s�sole�risk.� 

� 

b. When�transferring�documents�in�electronic�media�format,�SPRC�makes�no�representations�as�to�long�term� 

compatibility,�usability,�or�readability�of�documents�resulting�from�the�use�of�software�application�packages,� 

operating� systems,� or� computer� hardware� differing� from� those� used� by� SPRC� at� the� beginning� of� this� 

Assignment.� 

� 

c. If�there�is�a�discrepancy�between�the�electronic�files�and�the�hard�copies,�the�hard�copies�govern.� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�3� 

CC_08092012 


� 

d. Because�data�stored�in�electronic�media�format�can�deteriorate�or�be�modified�inadvertently�or�otherwise� 

without�authorization�of�this�data’s�creator,�the�party�receiving�electronic�files�agrees�that�it�will�perform� 

acceptance�tests�or�procedures�within�sixty�(60)�days,�after�which�the�receiving�party�shall�be�deemed�to� 

have�accepted�the�data�thus�transferred.��Any�errors�detected�within�the�sixty�(60)�day�acceptance�period� 

will� be� corrected� by� the� party� delivering� the� electronic� files.��SPRC� shall� not� be� responsible� to� maintain� 

documents�stored�in�electronic�media�format�after�acceptance�by�the�CLIENT.� 

� 

13.� INDEMNIFICATION�AND�ALLOCATION�OF�RISK�� 

� 

� To� the� fullest� extent� permitted� by� law,� SPRC� agrees� to� indemnify� and� hold� harmless� the� CLIENT,� its� officers,� 

directors�and�employees�from�and�against�any�damages,�liabilities�or�costs�(including�reasonable�attorneys’�fees� 

and�defense�costs)�to�the�extent�caused�by�SPRC’s�negligent�acts�under�this�Agreement�and�that�of�its�subSPRCs�or� 

anyone�for�whom�SPRC�is�legally�liable.� 

� 

To� the� fullest� extent� permitted� by� law,� the� CLIENT� agrees� to� indemnify� and� hold� harmless� SPRC,� its� officers,� 

directors�and�employees�from�and�against�any�damages,�liabilities�or�costs�(including�reasonable�attorneys’�fees� 

and�defense�costs)�to�the�extent�caused,�by�the�CLIENT’s�negligent�acts�under�this�Agreement�and�that�of�its�sub� 

consultants�or�anyone�for�whom�the�CLIENT�is�legally�liable.� 

� 

14.� INSURANCE�� 

� 

� SPRC� will� provide� a� certificate� of� insurance� to� the� CLIENT� no� later� than� thirty� (30)� days� after� executing� this� 

Agreement� and� prior� to� commencing� any� work� hereunder.� �Insurance� certificates� must� show� all� insurance� 

coverage� as� required� by� this� Agreement� to� the� satisfaction� of� the� CLIENT.� �SPRC� will� maintain� completed� 

operations�insurance�in�full�force�and�effect�throughout�the�term�of�this�Agreement.� 

� 

Workers’�Compensation�Insurance�� 

SPRC� will� provide� Worker’s� Compensation� insurance� for� all� its� employees� and,� in� case� any� work� is� 

subcontracted,� SPRC� will� require� subcontractors� to�provide� Worker’s� Compensation� insurance� in� accordance� 

with�the�statutory�requirements�of�the�State�of�Minnesota,�including�coverage�B,�Employer’s�Liability.� 

� 

Commercial�General�Liability�� 

SPRC� will� maintain� insurance� protecting� it� from� claims� for� damages� for� bodily� injury,� including� sickness� or� 

disease,�death,�and�for�care�and�loss�of�services�as�well�as�from�claims�for�property�damage,�including�loss�of� 

use�which�may�arise�from�operations�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

$1,000,000.00�–�per�occurrence� 

$2,000,000.00�–�annual�aggregate� 

$2,000,000.00�–�annual�aggregate�Products/Completed�Operations� 

� 

The�following�coverage�will�be�included:� 

� 

Premises�and�Operations�Bodily�Injury�and�Property�Damage� 

Personal�and�Advertising�Injury� 

Blanket�Contractual�Liability� 

Products�and�Completed�Operations�Liability� 

CLIENT�named�as�an�Additional�Insured� 

� 

Commercial�Automobile�Liability�� 

SPRC�will�maintain�insurance�protecting�the�CLIENT�from�claims�for�damages�for�bodily�injury�as�well�as�from� 

claims�for�property�damage�resulting�from�the�ownership,�operation,�maintenance�or�use�of�all�owned,�hired,� 

and�non�owned�autos�which�may�arise�from�operations�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�4� 

CC_08092012 


� 

$1,000,000.00�–�per�occurrence�Combined�Single�limit�for�Bodily�Injury�and�Property�Damage� 

� 

CLIENT�named�as�Additional�Insured.� 

� 

Professional/Technical,�Errors�and�Omissions,�and/or�Miscellaneous�Liability�Insurance�� 

This�policy�will�provide�coverage�for�all�claims�SPRC�may�become�legally�obligated�to�pay�resulting�from�any� 

actual�or�alleged�negligent�act,�error,�or�omission�related�to�professional�services�performed�by�SPRC�under�the� 

Agreement.��SPRC�will�carry�the�following�minimum�amounts:� 

� 

$2,000,000.00�–�per�claim�� 

$2,000,000.00�–�annual�aggregate� 

� 

� SPRC�will�furnish�the�CLIENT�with�satisfactory�evidence�of�policies�of�insurance,�which�shall�include�a�provision�or� 

endorsement�that�the�coverage�afforded�will�not�be�canceled�until�at�least�30�days’�prior�written�notice�and�10� 

days’�notice�for�cancellation�if�reason�is�for�non�payment�of�premium.� 

� 

15.� SUBCONTRACTING�AND�ASSIGNMENT�� 

� 

SPRC�may�enter�into�subcontracts�for�performance�of�any�services�contemplated�under�this�Agreement,�consistent� 

with�the�needs�of�the�Project.�� 

� 

16.� EQUAL�OPPORTUNITY� 

� 

During� the� performance� of� this� Agreement,� SPRC� shall� not� discriminate� against� any� employee� or� applicant� for� 

employment�because�of�race,�color,�creed,�religion,�national�origin,�sex,�marital�status,�status�with�regard�to�public� 

assistance,� disability,� or� age.��SPRC� shall� post� in� places� available� to� employees� and� applicants� for� employment,� 

notices�setting�forth�the�provisions�of�this�non�discrimination�clause�and�stating�that�all�qualified�applicants�will� 

receive�consideration�for�employment.�� 

� 

17.� MEDIATION�� 

� 

If�negotiation�in�good�faith�fails�to�resolve�a�dispute�within�the�thirty�(30)�days�of�notice�of�the�dispute,�or�time� 

period�specified�by�applicable�law,�then�the�parties�agree�that�each�dispute,�claim�or�controversy�arising�from�or� 

related�to�this�Agreement�or�the�relationships�which�result�from�this�Agreement�shall�be�subject�to�mediation�as�a� 

condition�precedent�to�initiating�legal�or�equitable�actions�by�either�party.��Unless�the�parties�agree�otherwise,�the� 

mediation� shall� be� in� accordance� with� the� Commercial� Mediation� Procedures� of� the� American� Arbitration� 

Association�then�currently�in�effect.��A�request�for�mediation�shall�be�filed�in�writing�with�the�American�Arbitration� 

Association�and�the�other�party.��No�legal�or�equitable�action�may�be�instituted�for�a�period�of�ninety�(90)�days� 

from�the�filing�of�the�request�for�mediation�unless�a�longer�period�of�time�is�provided�by�agreement�of�the�parties.�� 

Cost� of� mediation� shall� be� shared� equally� between� the� parties.��Mediation� shall� be� held� in� a� location� mutually� 

agreed� upon� by� the� parties.��The� parties� shall� memorialize� any� agreement� resulting� from� the� mediation� in� a� 

mediated� settlement� agreement,� which� agreement� shall� be� enforceable� as� a� settlement� in� any� court� having� 

jurisdiction�thereof.� 

� 

� 

18.� APPROVALS�� 

� 

� Before�this�Agreement�shall�become�binding�and�effective,�it�shall�receive�the�approval�of�such�authorized�officials� 

as�the�law�may�provide.� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�5� 

CC_08092012 


19.� CONFIDENTIALITY� 

� 

Each� of� the� parties� hereto,� to� the� extent� of� their� respective� rights� and� abilities� to� do� so,� shall� exchange� such� 

technical�and�commercial�information�and�data�as�are�reasonably�required�of�each�to�perform�its�part�of�this�joint� 

effort,�subject�to�any�confidentiality�obligations�to�third�parties.��Each�party�hereto�agrees�to�keep�in�confidence� 

and�to�use�the�same�degree�of�care�as�its�uses�with�respect�to�its�own�proprietary�data,�and�each�party�hereto� 

represents�that�it�exercises�reasonable�care�to�protect�its�own�proprietary�data,�to�prevent�the�disclosure�to�third� 

parties�of�all�technical�information�and�confidential�business�information�(hereinafter�referred�to�as�"Confidential� 

Data")�received�from�the�other�party�under�this�Agreement�(except�as�may�otherwise�be�required�by�law),�if�such� 

disclosed� in� writing� and� designated� by� an� appropriate� stamp� or� legend� by� the� disclosing� party� to� be� of� a� 

proprietary�nature.��Such�restriction�shall�not�apply,�however,�to�the�extent�such�Confidential�Data:�(a)�was�in�the� 

public�domain�at�the�time�of�disclosure�or�later�comes�into�the�public�domain�through�no�fault�of�the�receiving� 

party;�or�(b)�was�known�to�the�receiving�party�at�the�time�of�disclosure;�or�(c)�is�authorized�for�disclosure�by�the� 

written�approval�of�the�transmitting�party,�or�(d)�is�derived�by�the�receiving�party�from�a�source�(other�than�the� 

disclosing�party)�not�known�by�the�receiving�party�to�be�bound�by�any�confidentiality�obligation�with�any�party� 

hereto�with�respect�to�such�information;�or�(e)�is�independently�developed�by�the�receiving�party�without�recourse� 

to�any�proprietary�data�provided�under�this�Agreement.� 

� 

20.� SEVERABILITY�AND�WAIVER�OF�PROVISIONS� 

� 

Any�provisions�or�part�of�the�Agreement�held�to�be�void�or�unenforceable�under�any�laws�or�regulations�shall�be� 

deemed�stricken,�and�all�remaining�provisions�shall�continue�to�be�valid�and�binding�upon�the�CLIENT�and�SPRC,� 

who�agree�that�the�Agreement�shall�be�reformed�to�replace�such�stricken�provision�or�part�thereof�with�a�valid�and� 

enforceable�provision�that�comes�as�close�as�possible�to�expressing�the�intention�of�the�stricken�provision.��Non� 

enforcement�of�any�provision�by�either�party�shall�not�constitute�a�waiver�of�that�provision,�nor�shall�it�affect�the� 

enforceability�of�that�provision�or�of�the�remainder�of�this�Agreement.� 

� 

21. OPINION�OF�PROBABLE�CONSTRUCTION�COST� 

� 

Any�opinions�of�costs�prepared�by�SPRC�represent�its�judgment�as�a�design�professional�firm�and�are�furnished�for� 

the�general�guidance�of�the�CLIENT.��Since�SPRC�has�no�control�over�the�cost�of�labor,�materials,�market�condition,� 

or�competitive�bidding,�SPRC�does�not�guarantee�the�accuracy�of�such�cost�opinions�as�compared�to�contractor�or� 

supplier�bids�or�actual�cost�to�the�CLIENT.� 

� 

22. SURVIVAL� 

� 

All� provisions� of� this� Agreement� regarding� Ownership� and� Reuse� of� Documents,� Use� of� Electronic� Media� 

provisions,�Indemnification�and�Allocation�of�Risk,�and�Mediation�shall�remain�in�effect.� 

� 

� � 

� 

File:�� 

Page�6� 

CC_08092012 


� 

23.� ENTIRE�AGREEMENT� 

� 

� THIS� INSTRUMENT� embodies� the� whole� agreement� of� the� parties,� there� being� no� promises,� terms,� 

conditions�or�obligation�referring�to�the�subject�matter�other�than�contained�herein.��This�Agreement�may�only�be� 

amended,�supplemented,�modified�or�canceled�by�a�duly�executed�written�instrument�signed�by�both�parties.� 

� 

� IN� WITNESS� WHEREOF,� the� CLIENT� and� SPRC� by� their� authorized� partner� or� officer� have� hereunto� 

subscribed�their�names.� 

� 

SAINT�PAUL�RIVERFRONT�CORPORATION� � CITY�OF�WAYZATA� 

By� � � By� � 

Name� � � Name� � 

Title� � � Title� � 

Date� � � Date� � 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

File:�� 

Page�7� 

CC_08092012 


ATTACHMENT A 

Wayzata Lakefront Plan 

Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation Proposal 

Updated, July 31, 2012 

The City of Wayzata desires active and meaningful engagement of its citizens and 

lakefront stakeholders. The SPRC team has designed a process which builds on the 

momentum of the City Council-established Lakefront Taskforce. This body of work, 

including fact finding, issue identification, and stakeholder engagement, is the 

foundation from which any future planning will grow. As such, the process, outlined 

below and on subsequent pages, assumes close coordination with the Lakefront 

Taskforce, City leadership, and/or a newly established Steering Committee. 

The SPRC Team proposes a three phase Community Planning and Engagement 

process for the purpose of creating a 10 Year Lakefront Plan. The outcome of this 

intensive 16 month initiative is a community-embraced and actionable vision for one of 

Wayzata’s most important and enduring assets, its relationship to Lake Minnetonka. 

The first phase, Community Value Proposition, results in agreed upon statements 

reflecting community sentiment about its aspirations for the future of the lakefront. 

These values form the basis of the design and ideation process, found in the second 

phase, which we call Transformation Framework. Through the hands-on community 

design process pioneered and perfected by the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation all 

interested community members become a part of the design team. Upon completion of 

this process, a community-embraced framework emerges. 

During the third phase, Action Plan, this framework is translated to an actionable plan, 

with priorities, cost estimates, and proposed ongoing management—the 10 Year 

Lakefront Plan. 

Phase One: Community Value Proposition 

This phase is designed to extract the community’s goals and aspirations for the future of 

the lakefront area. Drawing from our tool chest of community engagement 

methodologies, we will facilitate a multi-phase, structured approach to encourage 

community input, tap into current conversations, and stimulate new ideas and voices. 

Our plan involves a Project-Initiation Event that could be the foundation for an annual 

“lakefront progress” celebration, Walkability Surveys, Key Person interviews, Intercept 

Surveys, Focus Groups and a Lakefront Scan. This phase concludes with an Open 

House and public presentation of community values. 

CC_08092012 


1.1 Kick Off Events 

The SPRC team will work with the client team to develop inspiring kick-off events 

designed to orient and energize the community around the planning initiative while 

creating an environment for substantive input. 

The events will include: 

� JJ Hill Festival—September 8 and 9, 2012 

-Booth staffed by SPRC team and Lakefront Volunteers 

-Use of engagement tools such as interviews, interactive maps and illustrations 

-Distribution of materials such as Surveys, Launch Invite, Project Schedule. 

� Public Launch Event—September 11, 2012 

-Exhibits by partner agencies and related organizations 

-Keynote presentation by an expert on waterfront development, with an emphasis on 

images and opportunities from like cities; 

-Facilitated community conversation using Audience Response System electronic 

technology to gather and rank community issues and priorities right from the 

beginning of the process; and 

-Use of Website, Twitter, and Facebook to generate virtual conversation, real time, 

and ongoing throughout the length of the consultancy. 

Outcome: Well publicized and attended project launch. 

1.2 Walkability Survey 

The SPRC team will develop a Wayzata version of Saint Paul’s Walkability Survey and 

will organize and lead five group walking tours to document the walking experience 

from various points in the city to the lakeshore, providing important data about 

community expectations and values. Participants will be encouraged to take photos of 

conditions and upload to the website Flickr Library where they can add comments. 

Outcome: Community generated data describing and illustrating access from the city to 

the lakefront and a catalog of photo images to use as examples for the Wayzata 

lakefront. 

1.3 Key Person Interviews, Intercept Surveys, and Focus Groups 

Key Person Interviews: The SPRC team will work with the client team to identify up to one 

dozen key community members whose insights, experiences, and points of view may be 

particularly helpful to the community engagement process. 

Intercept Surveys: The SPRC team will design and implement Intercept Surveys, targeting 

Wayzata visitors and visitors to other Lake Minnetonka communities. 

� 

2� 

CC_08092012 


Neighborhood and other Focus Groups: The SPRC team will conduct five focus groups, 

organized with assistance of neighborhood leaders and other project volunteers. 

Outcome: Ensures broadest spectrum of participation in issue, need, and opportunity 

identification and direction. 

1.4 Lakefront Scan 

The SPRC team will prepare an environmental scan to document the existence and 

character of physical and economic features including: residential and commercial areas, 

streets, open space and institutions, topography and natural features, water and land 

circulation, cultural resources, and parking/docking. 

Outcome: Maps, diagrams, and metrics describing the lakefront landscape. 

1.5 Open House 

The SPRC team will facilitate an open house event that feeds back to the community a 

distilled and synthesized set of community values which together will guide lakefront 

planning and development. It is anticipated that there may be six to eight such value 

statements, such as “touch the water” or “a lively winter community” or “center for the 

arts.” The open house will be designed to generate community response and to further 

fine tune statements to most accurately reflect community sentiment. 

Outcome: A ranked set of community values regarding the lakefront. 

1.6 Value Proposition 

Based on the workshop, the Wayzata Lakefront Value Proposition will be prepared and 

confirmed with the Client. This document will capture the agreed upon community values 

and serve as a guide for future idea generation and design ideation in Phase Two. 

Outcome: Value Propositions Document. 

Phase Two: Transformation Framework 

This phase continues and builds on the community engagement process initiated in Phase 

One. Through a hands-on approach, community members will be invited to fully participate 

in the translating community values into design concepts. We imagine establishing a 

studio/gallery space, coupled with a virtual studio/gallery on line, that becomes the go-to 

center for information about and participation in the planning process. 

� 

3� 

CC_08092012 


The studio/gallery will be the working venue for a series of community oriented workshops 

which allow Wayzatians to work amongst professional designers in brainstorming and 

testing ideas in response to each of the Community Values. Pioneered and perfected by the 

Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, this approach treats community members as true partners 

with design professionals. We have found that when given the opportunity to meaningfully 

participate in this process, community members become the local experts and long term 

champions for the resulting vision. 

Each of the community values will be addressed separately, forming “layers of ideas” that 

ultimately form the basic backbone for the lakefront vision and framework. 

2.1 Value Layer Workshops 

The SPRC team will lead four workshops, addressing all of the identified community values, 

each forming a layer of the overall framework. The workshops are intentionally designed to 

welcome community members wishing to be full participants in the idea generating process. 

Groups comprised of community members and professional designers will work together in 

vetting ideas, considering alternatives, synthesizing options, and examining precedents. At 

the conclusion of each workshop, groups will report back to one another. The general range 

of proposals to address each community value will begin to emerge. 

Workshops will be held at a time most convenient for community participation such as 

evenings or weekends. They will be staggered every two weeks, addressing all of the the 

Community Values. 

Outcome: Ideas and relationships to realize specific community values. 

2.2 Draft Lakefront Framework 

The SPRC team will integrate each of the layers into an overall Lakefront Framework, while 

still retaining the identity of each layer for future discussions. This draft will be reflective of 

the emerging community vision for the lakefront and will serve to organize individual project 

initiatives into a coordinated implementation plan. 

Outcome: Draft Framework. 

2.3 Draft Framework Presentation 

The SPRC team will host a public discussion where the Draft Framework is presented. This 

event, like all others, allows for community participation. Following the event, materials will 

remain accessible for further comment and feedback in the studio/gallery and on the project 

website (virtual). Social media tools will be employed throughout. 

� 

4� 

CC_08092012 


Outcome: Community readiness to support final phase of planning process. 

2.4 Final Framework 

The SPRC team will incorporate the additional comments received and prepare a final 

Framework. 

Outcome: Final Framework which will serve as the baseline for the 10 Year Lakefront 

Plan and related action plan. 

Phase Three: Action Plan 

This phase is organized to develop the supporting economic, policy, and organizational 

infrastructure to realize the vision. 

3.1 Draft Investment Strategy 

The SPRC team will deconstruct the Framework into manageable public realm improvement 

projects and a number of strategic public/private initiatives. Cost estimates for public 

projects will be budgeted on a unit cost basis of comparable projects executed in Wayzata 

and other cities, drawing on SRF Consulting’s vast experience in Wayzata and elsewhere. 

Likewise, Gregory Page, with extensive experience in fund raising and project financing, will 

identify potential and likely sources of support. The resulting matrix will present individual 

projects, anticipated implementation cost, and likely sources of support. Additionally, the 

SPRC team will work with City staff in submitting at least one significant grant application 

based on an emerging project priority and likely funding opportunity. This grant application 

will serve as the basis for other future applications. 

Outcome: Draft Investment Strategy for planning, economic development, public works and 

city council review. Grant proposal submitted. 

3.2 Implementation Plan 

The SPRC team will develop a plan which lays out the proposed approach to ensure 

successful long term implementation of the vision. To do so it will draw from its nearly 20 

years of experience in stewarding waterfront plans. The implementation chapter will propose 

organizational models, potential public and private partners, accountability and 

measurement metrics, financial requirements and sources, methods for plan stewardship 

and modification, and ongoing investment in community engagement. 

Outcome: Organizational road map to implement the Framework vision and Investment 

Strategy. 

� 

5� 

CC_08092012 


3.3 Community Presentation/Celebration 

The SPRC team will work with the City to design an appropriate roll-out celebration. This 

event will unveil the 10 Year Lakefront Plan, comprised of the Framework, the Investment 

Strategy, and the Implementation Plan. It will feature some of the same characteristics of 

kick-off event, creating a sense of festivity, celebration, and continuity. It will convey the 

intent for ongoing community engagement throughout implementation by laying out 

expectations for managing, monitoring and celebrating incremental implementation over the 

next ten years. 

Outcome: A new community tradition to celebrate progress and immediate next steps. 

3.4 Action Plan 

Upon receiving final input, the 10 Year Lakefront Plan with its component chapter will be 

presented to the City of Wayzata for adoption and action. 

Outcome: Ideas and relationships to realize specific community values. 

� 

6� 

CC_08092012 


Additional Items: 

Anticipated Project Timetable: 

� 

� Phase I, Community Value Proposition: 5 Months 

� Phase II, Vision and Framework: 4 Months 

� Phase III, Action Plan: 3 Months 

This schedule is designed to take advantage of the community energy surrounding 

James J. Hill Days. It compresses, when compared to the original submittal, Phases II 

and III, by reducing the number of Value Layer Workshops, and commencing Phase III 

work earlier in the process. 

Anticipated Project Committee Meetings: 

� Executive Committee: 1-2 times per month, depending on project stage. 

� Steering Committee: Every 4-8 weeks, depending on project stage. 

� Advisory Committee: 4 times over the course of the project, preceding 

public meetings. 

� Partner Agencies: Quarterly plus individual sessions. 

� Public: Four public events. 

7� 

CC_08092012 


Detailed Fee Listing and Total Estimated Cost 

I. Community Value 

Proposition 

� 

Labor and Expense 

(Original) 

8� 


(Revised) 

1.1 Project Initiation Event $12,000.00 $12,000.00 

1.2 Imagine Wayzata and 

Walkability Tours 

10,000.00-20,000.00 3,000.00 

1.3 Key Person Interviews 5,000.00 8,000.00 

1.4 Lakefront Scan 8,000.00 8,000.00 

1.5 Open House 7,000.00-10,000.00 5,000.00 

1.6 Value Proposition 5,000.00 5,000.00 

� 

II. Vision and Framework 

SUB-TOTAL $47,000.00-60,000.00 $41,900.00 


(Original) 


(Revised) 

2.1 Value Layer Workshops $23,000-31,000 $14,000.00 

2.2 Draft Lakefront Framework 5,000.00 5,000.00 

2.3 Draft Framework 

Presentation 

3,000.00 3,000.00 

2.4 Final Framework 5,000.00 5,000.00 

� 

III. Action Plan 

SUB-TOTAL $36,000.00-44,000.00 


(Original) 

$27,000.00 


(Revised) 

3.1 Draft Investment Strategy $18,000.00 $18,000.00 

3.2 Implementation Plan 5,000.00 5,000.00 

3.3 Community Presentation/ 

Celebration 

9,000.00-19,000 4,000.00 

3.4 Action Plan 9,000.00 4,000.00 

� 

� 

SUB-TOTAL $41,000.00-51,000.00 

$31,000.00 

TOTAL $124,000.00-155,000.00 $99,000.00 

CC_08092012

Drive-Through Queuing Data Form - City of Wayzata

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?