HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/02/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
FEBRUARY 17, 2015
(Councilmember Mavity Out)
6:30 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEW – Community Room
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 30 min. Police Body Camera Trial Project
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement Recognition Resolution for Dispatcher Julie Shipman
2b. Proclamation Honoring National Nutrition Month
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes January 26, 2015
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes February 2, 2015
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes February 2, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds
Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
approving proposed use of 2015 Urban Hennepin County Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program Funds and authorizing execution of Subrecipient
Agreement with Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
Meeting of February 17, 2015
City Council Agenda
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the franchise transfer with
conditions. Note: Based on on-going negotiations, it is possible that a slightly revised
resolution may be presented to Council for consideration by or before the Council
meeting. If so, an explanation will be provided, including at the meeting.
8b. Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Denying Application of Zoning
Text Amendments.
8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution, and authorize summary for
publication, for text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan related to Planned Unit
Developments.
8d. Bid Tabulation - Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001
Recommended Action: Motion to designate Ferguson Waterworks as the lowest cost
responsible life cycle bidder and to authorize the execution of a contract with the vendor
in the amount of $3,423,102.70 for Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001.
9. Communications -- None
Meeting of February 17, 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution to recognize Dispatcher Julie Shipman for her nearly 33 years of
service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota P.I.D. 08-117-21-44-
0043.
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3908 Sunset Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0120.
4d. Adopt Resolution Supporting Move MN Campaign.
4e. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP
meeting minutes of January 7, 2015.
4f. Approve for filing Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 21, 2015.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in
the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon
on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Police Body Camera Trial Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is seeking feedback from and discussion with Council
regarding the deployment of police body cameras.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Council interested in continued research and review of
deployment of police body cameras?
SUMMARY: Staff has been researching body camera technology and utilization during the past
6 months and has identified two companies we believe merit further evaluation by means of a
trial period. We have worked with our City Attorney on the trial agreements associated with this
step, and our City Attorney has also assisted in preparing policies and procedures which would
guide us during the trials. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has identified the
following perceived benefits and implementation considerations through recently completed
research on the topic:
Perceived Benefits of Body Cameras:
• Accountability and Transparency
• Evidence Documentation
Considerations for Implementation:
• Privacy Considerations
• Impact on Community Relations
• Addressing Officer Concerns
• Managing Expectations
• Financial Considerations
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Data storage and the review and redaction
required for data retention and public data requests will likely result in significant financial
impacts on the police department budget unless laws guiding these issues are changed or
interpreted differently. These conclusions are supported by the experiences of other agencies in
our state and around the country (see supporting documents).
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Associated Press Story – February 6, 2015
Seattle Times Story – November 20, 2014
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Police Body Camera Trial Project
If St. Paul police get body cams, data won't come
cheap
By Brian Bakst and Ryan J. Foley
Associated Press
POSTED: 02/06/2015 12:01:00 AM CST
UPDATED: 02/06/2015 11:30:17 PM CST
The rush to outfit police officers with body cameras after last summer's unrest in Ferguson, Mo.,
threatens to saddle local governments with steep costs to manage the volumes of footage they
must keep for months or even years, according to contracts, invoices and company data reviewed
by the Associated Press.
The storage expenses -- running into millions of dollars in some cities -- often get overlooked in
the debates over using cameras as a way to hold officers accountable and to improve community
relations.
Yet those costs can have a significant effect on city and county budgets, and in some cases may
force police chiefs to choose between paying officers on the street or paying yearly video storage
fees.
In St. Paul, the police department is aware of those factors.
"Cameras are the inexpensive part; it's the software and data storage that's expensive," Sgt. Paul
Paulos, a St. Paul police spokesman, said this week.
The St. Paul and Hastings city councils approved police body-camera pilot programs this week.
In Hastings, the program will put eight body cameras in the field this spring at a cost of $9,800,
which includes software and server storage.
St. Paul police are interested in body-worn cameras, but they want to study the best way to do it,
Paulos said.
The St. Paul council directed the police department to develop a pilot program to launch in 2016.
They are to report back to the city council by May 1 and Sept. 1 on costs, long-term budget
impact and "data creation, maintenance, access and retention issues," according to the resolution.
"This is going to be costly, I suspect, and we should know that in advance," council member Dan
Bostrom said Wednesday.
Police in Minnesota use body cameras in Burnsville, Farmington, Brooklyn Park and Duluth.
Minneapolis is undergoing a pilot project.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake already has sounded the alarm over the long-term
costs of police body cameras.
Special Study Session Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Police Body Camera Trial Project
In December, she vetoed a proposal that would have required officers to wear cameras because
she didn't believe the costs and other details were adequately considered. City officials estimated
costs up to $2.6 million a year for storage and the extra staff needed to manage the video data.
"Knowing how we didn't have a lot of wiggle room with the budget constraints we face, we
couldn't afford to get it wrong," said Rawlings-Blake, who intends to present another plan this
spring. "Any time you do something on this scale, if you don't take the time up front, you are
setting yourself up for failure and disappointment from the community.
In some cities, the AP found that the small cameras worn by beat cops on their uniforms or
glasses were obtained at deep discounts when departments inked data-management deals that are
far more lucrative over the long run for device manufacturers. Those plans run between $20 and
$100 per officer per month, depending on the volume generated.
Demand for the devices is booming after the controversy in Ferguson and would accelerate
further if Congress adopts President Barack Obama's request for $75 million to help
communities buy 50,000 more body cameras.
Already, cities are wrestling with whether they can afford to equip all their officers and how
often the cameras should be turned off to reduce the video recorded.
With an average officer uploading several videos per shift, it doesn't take long for data -- and the
associated expense--to add up.
"It's enormous," said Police Chief Gordon Ramsay of Duluth, where the city's 110 officer-worn
cameras are generating 8,000 to 10,000 videos per month that are kept for at least 30 days and in
many cases longer. "The more you capture, the more you have to store, which means higher
costs."
Duluth initially received 84 cameras and charging bays for less than $5,000 from camera maker
Taser International, but its three-year contract and licensing agreement for data storage cost
about $78,000.
Other cities are just beginning to struggle with how to pay for body cameras:
-- In Wichita, Kan., the police department has proposed selling a helicopter used to search for
suspects in order to fund its body-camera program for hundreds of officers. The cost is estimated
at $6.4 million over a decade and includes two employees to manage the program.
-- In Berkeley, Calif., the city manager warned in a memo in January of likely costs of at least
$45,000 a year for storing data from 150 cameras and assigning one or two employees. In
addition, officers might spend 30 minutes per shift handling the video -- the equivalent annual
time of five full-time officers, the memo said. The city council is scheduled to debate the issue
next week.
Special Study Session Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Police Body Camera Trial Project
"In our community, that alone would be about $1 million," city council member Laurie Capitelli
told AP, referring to the officers' time. "I want to look at the costs and consider the trade-offs."
-- San Diego's five-year contract with Taser for 1,000 cameras would cost $267,000 for the
devices -- but another $3.6 million for storage contracts, software licenses, maintenance,
warranties and related equipment. City officials can scale back the deal if funding dries up.
Digital Ally, among several companies trying to get a foothold in the industry, donated cameras
and a server to store the data to the police department in Ferguson, where officers began wearing
them shortly after the August shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black, by white
officer Darren Wilson.
Industry giants Taser and VieVu also saw interest in their cameras spike. Taser's trials in major
U.S. cities tripled after the shooting, and its stock price has more than doubled since. The
company's Evidence.com unit, which offers the data-management platform, is expanding.
"This is obviously great for business, but I think ultimately this is a great technology to increase
transparency between communities," said Taser chief marketing officer Luke Larson.
Supporters of the body cameras say they help prosecutors close cases faster, reduce use-of-force
incidents and make allegations of misconduct against officers easier to probe. Both sides in a
videotaped encounter behave better, they say, leading to fewer complaints and legal settlements.
The body-camera funding in the federal budget Obama proposed Monday would be part of a
three-year plan and does not distinguish between hardware and storage costs. The proposal will
go before a Republican-controlled Congress that is trying to reduce federal spending and will not
be decided for months.
Police officials say they expect the cost of body cameras to exceed the in-car video systems that
were widely implemented during the early 2000s. Some departments say it's been hard to find
money to maintain those systems as they age.
Body-worn cameras are expected to produce even more videos and more requests from lawyers,
journalists and the general public for access to what they show.
Mindful of costs, police forces with cameras are limiting when officers use them, what they store
and for how long. But many can't avoid adding servers and reassigning or hiring extra staff.
Some officials are warning the ongoing costs could mean tax hikes or service cuts later.
"Everybody is screaming, 'We need body cameras.' But nobody is saying, where is the money
coming from? What are you going to do with all the data? Who is going to manage it?" said Sgt.
Jason Halifax of the Des Moines Police Department, which is struggling to identify a funding
source for $300,000 to start a program. "Are we going to cut personnel? Are we going to
increase taxes?"
Special Study Session Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Police Body Camera Trial Project
Pioneer Press staff writers Mara H. Gottfried and Nick Ferraro contributed to this article.
Seattle police may dump plans for body cams,
citing records requests
Mass-video request highlights tension between open records laws and lots of data.
by Joe Mullin - Nov 20 2014, 6:05pm CST
Police in Seattle are just weeks away from implementing pilot program in which 12 officers will
test different types of body cameras. It's a first step in a plan to put body cameras on the
department's more than 1,000 officers by the year 2016.
Now that plan may get put on ice, due in part to an overly broad public records requests. The
Seattle Times reported this morning that an anonymous man, known only by the email
address policevideorequests@gmail.com, has made an official request for "details on every 911
dispatch on which officers are sent; all the written reports they produce; and details of each
computer search generated by officers when they run a person’s name, or check a license plate or
address."
The requestor also wants all video from patrol car cameras currently in use, and plans to request
video from body cams once they are implemented. He has requested the information "every day,
in spreadsheet form."
Police are examining whether the request can be fulfilled, and what kind of fees to charge, if any,
said Seattle Police Department COO Mike Wagers.
“This would just shut down so many other aspects of our operation, responding to a request of
this nature," said Wagers.
The newspaper got in touch with the anonymous requestor via email, who said he's a computer
programmer in his 20s, living with his parents in Seattle. He said he wanted to expose the
potential privacy problems of body cameras.
“I think what we need is some sort of balance between transparency and privacy,” the
requestor said.
The man, who runs a YouTube channel of police video and audio, also spoke to Reuters, stating
his belief that "state law is simply too liberal when it comes to privacy."
He said he's filed similar requests throughout Washington state, including a request for all
surveillance video held by the Seattle Public Library.
The potential delay in Seattle's camera program comes at a time when more policymakers are
asking for police to increase use of police body cameras. In the wake of protests in Ferguson,
Missouri, one US Senator has called for police departments nationwide to implement such
camerasas a condition of getting federal funding.
Special Study Session Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Police Body Camera Trial Project
The story highlights the tension between a desire for transparency and the challenge of sifting
through vast quantities of data and documents that can now be stored.
Washington state law doesn't provide any means for public agencies to reject requests as
overbroad and the police video request isn't the only big one the city has dealt with. Seattle chief
technology officer Michael Mattmiller said the city recently got a request for all email sent and
received by city employees.
Mattmiller estimated that request would cost $110 million in salary money and would take 1,376
years for one full-time employee to fulfill.
The newspaper also quoted Seattle attorney Michele Earl-Hubbard, who specializes in public
records requests. She said the city was trying to use the body camera request as a "poster child"
to persuade legislators to change the law. Delivering information in installments, and charging
copying fees for each release of data, can ensure that time isn't wasted on frivolous requests,
she added.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Dispatcher Julie Shipman
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Read resolution and present plaque to Julie Shipman for nearly
33 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City
Council.
Dispatcher Julie Shipman will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the
meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present Julie with a plaque in recognition
of her years of service to the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Dispatcher Julie Shipman
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO DISPATCHER JULIE SHIPMAN
WHEREAS, Julie Shipman began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 33
years ago on March 8, 1982; and
WHEREAS, Julie never imagined on her first day that she would still be here 33 years later;
and
WHEREAS, Julie has seen countless technological changes in dispatch, moving from
typewriters, to reel to reel, to computers, to four computers at each dispatch console which
include five monitors and four mice; and
WHEREAS, Julie has maintained her sharp wit and sense of humor throughout the years;
and
WHEREAS, Julie has done her job with a sense of pride and investment in the St. Louis
Park Police organization; and
WHEREAS, Julie will spend her “non-working” time enjoying the beautiful property she
and her husband own in Minnetrista with a multitude of critters including dogs, cats, reptiles,
amphibians, and exotic roaches. Julie plans to pursue her “encore career” by expanding her
horse and housecleaning businesses and spending time at a stable working with horses and doing
anything outside where there are no phones or radios;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Dispatcher Julie
Shipman for her great contributions and nearly 33 years of dedicated service to the City of St.
Louis Park and wish her the best in her retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proclamation Honoring National Nutrition Month
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to read and present proclamation to Sharon Lehrman
and Thia Bryan, citizens involved in Health in the Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
BACKGROUND: Health in the Park is working on Eating Better in our community. They are
focusing on school hot lunch, gardens, and teaching people how to eat healthier. March is
designated as National Nutrition Month across the country.
Sharon Lehrman, citizen of St. Louis Park and MPH, RDN, LD is a Nutrition Consultant,
Registered and Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist, Past President, MN Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics (MAND) approached HIP to see if our city would make a proclamation for the month
of March.
Thia Bryan, citizen of St. Louis Park, works for Health Partners, and has been the chair of the
Eating Better Group for HIP. She has worked hard over the last year to create awareness in our
city about healthy eating.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proclamation
Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 2b ) Page 2
Title: Proclamation Honoring National Nutrition Month
PROCLAMATION
National Nutrition Month
WHEREAS, food is the substance by which life is sustained; and
WHEREAS, the type, quality, and amount of food that individuals consume
each day plays a vital role in their overall health and physical fitness; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for continuing nutrition education and a wide-
scale effort to enhance access to healthy food and healthy eating; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to Health in the Park
initiative to inspire a healthier, more active community; and
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the month of March
NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH® in the City of St. Louis Park; and
LET IT FURTHER BE KNOWN that we encourage all citizens to join the
campaign for better nutrition for themselves and others in the goal of achieving
optimal health.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 17th day of February, 2015.
_________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 26, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Hunt), Planning & Economic Development Assistant (Ms. Grove), Communications &
Marketing Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Mr. John Basill and Mr. Joe Arko (St. Louis Park Hockey Association), Mr. Steve
Morelli (RSP Architects), and Mr. Bob Murphy (Japs-Olson).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 2 and 9, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for February 2nd and the
proposed study session agenda for February 9th.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council allot more time to discuss the McGarvey site
purchase and whether to consider delaying the purchase until the City has a better idea about
whether the Beltline underpass is going to be built.
Councilmember Spano stated he was in favor of purchasing the property now even if the Beltline
LRCI does not happen.
Councilmember Mavity spoke in favor of purchasing the property and felt the value of this site is
much greater to the City than to a private developer and it would be important for the City to
control the land in order to have a coherent vision for the entire area.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to proceed with the purchase of the
McGarvey site.
2. Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Update
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report.
Mr. Eisold distributed a sample of the roofing material to be used on the facility.
Councilmember Sanger asked if this type of roof complied with the City’s Zoning Code.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
Ms. McMonigal explained that an outdoor ice rink is not defined as a building in the City Code
and there does not appear to be any restrictions on using this type of roofing material.
Mr. Basill reiterated the Hockey Association’s commitment to this project and its ongoing desire
to help with the facility.
Mr. Arko stated that he asked several lacrosse board members if they would be interested in
using this facility and their answer was an emphatic “yes.” He stated the soccer and baseball
associations also expressed an interest in using the facility and they all indicated they would be
willing to pay for using the facility. He stated the additional $50,000 commitment referenced in
the SLPHA letter of intent is intended to accommodate non-hockey uses.
Ms. Walsh stated that staff would like to complete this project in conjunction with the
refrigeration system replacement because of the cost savings of approximately $400,000.
Councilmember Spano supported moving forward with design development.
Councilmember Mavity supported moving forward with design development, adding she felt this
was a great project but continued to be concerned about gender equity in terms of how the City is
investing its resources.
Councilmember Sanger stated she continued to have mixed feelings about the project. She
commended the Hockey Association for its commitment and willingness to partner with the City,
but was troubled that the City would commit millions of dollars on another facility aimed at
youth athletics when a Community Center project that would serve all ages has been put on hold.
She acknowledged the demand for the outdoor ice rink but was not comfortable putting more
money into a youth sports facility when the City is not currently willing to put money into
facilities being demanded by other segments of the population.
Councilmember Brausen supported moving forward with design development and was happy to
see the project being built as a public/private partnership.
Councilmember Lindberg expressed appreciation to the Hockey Association for its donation. He
indicated he was on the fence about the project and questioned how much access to the facility
would be available to the average, non-organized youth sports family and he would like to be
able to quantify that. He agreed the Community Center project should be put on hold but was
apprehensive about supporting this project without first having a discussion about how this
facility would serve the greater community.
Councilmember Hallfin supported moving forward with design development. He asked about
the hourly rates charged for the outdoor ice and suggested increasing the rate.
Mayor Jacobs supported moving forward with design development and thanked the Hockey
Association for their contributions to the project.
3. Small Business Assistance Program Update
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that Ms. Grove’s role has been expanded to serve
as Small Business Liaison and she will be the primary point person for all small business
inquiries. He stated the City has also contracted with Donna Sanders with JBS Business
Solutions and Ms. Sanders can provide assistance to businesses that want help with the
regulatory process or other matters and the City will pay for the first two hours of Ms. Sanders’
consultation.
Ms. Grove advised that the City is marketing a new program called Property Assessed Clean
Energy (PACE) through a Joint Powers Agreement with the St. Paul Port Authority at no cost to
the City and several property owners have expressed interest in this program. She advised that a
Business Retention and Expansion program was recently launched and staff has prepared a
survey to obtain feedback from business owners. She stated staff is also working on a link on the
City’s website to enable businesses to easily locate properties for sale or lease in the City. She
advised that staff is continually working on outreach to the small business community and has
prepared a marketing brochure that highlights available programs.
Mr. Hunt stated the City consistently receives inquiries about financing programs and staff has
been considering whether to partner with Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC), a
nonprofit company that provides financing in conjunction with local lenders. He explained that
the City could establish a revolving loan fund within the Development Fund that could include a
public/private match, adding that this potential loan program would require further research and
discussion with Council.
Councilmember Spano stated he was interested in learning more about a potential partnership
with CMDC and a revolving loan program.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was always willing to consider ways to assist small businesses
but was not sure if a revolving loan program was the right tool.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was willing to consider a revolving loan program but was
concerned about how much staff time would be involved in this type of program.
Councilmember Brausen stated he was willing to consider a revolving loan program if the
program is targeted to specific types of businesses that the City is interested in attracting.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he would like to learn more about a revolving loan program,
including the City’s investment in the program and how the City can target the program to the
types of development the community wants to see.
Councilmember Hallfin was supportive of anything the City could do to help small businesses,
particularly for St. Louis Park residents who own small businesses.
Mayor Jacobs questioned whether this type of program was outside the City’s area of expertise
and was not sure this was something the City should be taking on.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to provide Council with further
information regarding potential loan programs, including the City’s risk associated with any type
of loan program.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
Other Small Business Programs
Councilmember Mavity felt there were specific places in the community for big box businesses
and for small businesses and she wanted to make sure the City was using all available tools to
support small businesses, e.g., using zoning tools to limit square footage in certain areas. She
referenced the form based zoning project and how to use form based zoning to incent small
businesses.
Councilmember Sanger supported the City’s efforts to buy local but felt it was important to
figure out how to break down some of the contracts into smaller packages so that small
businesses can bid on those smaller packages. She felt the City needed to do more outreach to
women- and minority-owned businesses and to consider how the City can be more helpful in that
regard.
Councilmember Spano felt it would be helpful to talk to some of the City’s finance businesses
and get their feedback about a possible revolving loan program. He stated that the Federal
government might have some opportunities available for small business and suggested speaking
with a representative of the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Harmening advised that a presentation would be given to the St. Louis Park Business
Council in April about the small business programs.
4. Municipal Boundary Change with the City of Hopkins/Japs-Olson Building
Expansion
Mr. Harmening introduced Mr. Bob Murphy from Japs-Olson.
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and a map depicting the proposed adjustment to the
boundary between Hopkins and St. Louis Park. She advised that each city must pass a resolution
that is filed with the chief administrative law judge and the process would take 30-60 days.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to pursue a boundary change to allow for
a significant addition to the Japs-Olson building.
5. Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and stated if Council wanted to interview all commissioners
up for reappointment in 2015, Council would have 17 Commission seats held by incumbents up
for reappointment and would need additional interviews. If the positions are open, Council
would also need to interview those who apply for these seats. She stated that for commission
openings since October 2014, Council has conducted 12 interviews.
Councilmember Mavity stated that when someone is appointed to a commission, they are
basically appointed for life if they choose to be reappointed and it is difficult for new candidates
to get on a commission when commissioners are continually reappointed. She stated that in
Eden Prairie, when a commissioner’s term ends, the city advertises it and notes if there is an
incumbent and often times the incumbent gets reappointed, but others have an opportunity to
apply and sometimes Eden Prairie chooses to interview candidates. She stated if someone wants
to be reappointed for a third time in Eden Prairie, it has to be unanimous and there is no fourth
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
term. She stated that Hopkins has term limits and commissioners can only be reappointed twice.
She stated she was not sure she wanted term limits but felt there needed to be more
accountability and the City does not currently have a way to choose the best people for a
commission.
Councilmember Sanger stated the purpose of the City’s boards and commissions is to provide
advice, input, and recommendations to Council and she liked having people on the commissions
who have been there awhile and developed valuable expertise, adding she had no interest in
getting rid of a commissioner just because they had been on a commission for a long time. She
stated Council needed to have a clearer, more proactive process for identifying and addressing
issues related to a commissioner who might be disruptive or who is not showing up for meetings,
but she did not think Council needed to change the interview process.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that commissioners serve an important advisory role and he
wanted to feel comfortable that Council was selecting the right commissioners and was
accountable for its decisions. He felt that Council needed more structure in its process and
would like to discuss how to make sure the City’s various commissioners are meeting
expectations and not creating problems for staff.
Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of term limits and felt it was important to have turnover
to provide opportunities for others to serve and bring fresh energy to the process and thought that
three terms should be the limit and he was fine with someone coming back on a commission
after they have gone off. He also felt that Council should limit the number of times it conducts
interviews throughout the year so that the process is not so cumbersome.
Councilmember Spano thought that Council could interview incumbents and judge their merits
in the same way Council judges the merits of new candidates, adding he was okay with
interviewing incumbents when their term is up. He also felt that Council should interview all
candidates for a commission opening on the same night. He felt that the board/commission
member application form should include questions specific to the commission being applied for
and also include a question that is topical or germane to the work of the commission.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he did not have an issue with the current interview process and
did not think the current system was broken. He stated he was okay with term limits and he did
not want to interview commissioners seeking reappointment, adding he felt the people serving on
the commissions have been providing good advice and he was willing to accept that advice
unless Council felt it needed to revisit a particular reappointment.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council used a ranking process for the recent CAC and BAC
appointments that worked well and thought that was an efficient way of making appointments.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was not in favor of interviewing all incumbents unless there
was a specific reason, adding she did not feel the current 15-minute interviews were effective
and Council needs to work on the way it conducts these interviews.
Councilmember Lindberg felt that ranking applicants was a fairly subjective process and it
would be important to have some sort of tool to add objectivity to the process.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
Council continued its discussion regarding the reappointment process.
Councilmember Mavity spoke in favor of limiting appointments to two consecutive terms as a
way to open up the process for more residents.
Council determined that they would like more structure in the interview process. Some are
interested in developing a process to interview all, including incumbents who reapply when their
term is up.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff would provide Council with further information on this issue at a
future study session.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening advised the School District has offered a seat on the School District’s Strategic
Planning Committee, which will hold four all day meetings in April, May, and June.
It was the consensus of the City Council to select Councilmember Lindberg to serve on the
School District’s Strategic Planning Committee.
Mr. Zwilling reported that staff is currently working on an update to the City’s brand. He
presented a copy of the City of Bloomington’s newsletter and advised the City is considering
using this style of newsletter that will allow for more content and the mailing cost will be the
same. He stated the City has received inquiries about whether residents can receive these
publications electronically and advised that it is still much cheaper for the City to mail these
publications, however, as part of the City’s meter replacement program, staff intends to obtain
email addresses from as many residents as possible and will continue to research whether it is
economical to send City publications via email.
Mr. Harmening advised that he would be meeting with Scott Neal and a representative from the
City of Minneapolis on Wednesday to discuss the 40th and France Avenue property.
Mr. Harmening stated that Mr. Zwilling’s last day is Wednesday, January 28th, and everyone is
welcome to attend Mr. Zwilling’s going away party at Park Tavern from 4:00-6:00 p.m.
Mr. Zwilling thanked Mr. Harmening and Ms. Deno for their excellent leadership and stated he
has enjoyed working at the City and has appreciated all the support from Council.
Councilmember Mavity reported that she attended the Southwest LRT Executive Change
Control Board meeting and the Board voted on LRCIs that would be eligible for funding if
money is available. She advised that all of the City’s LRCIs with the exception of the localized
portion of the CSAH 25 improvements were voted as eligible for funding if money is available.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Southwest LRT Update
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 26, 2015
7. December 2014 Monthly Financial Report
8. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014)
9. Zoning Text Amendment – Outside Storage in the Industrial Park District
10. Proposed Acquisition Terms of 5725 Hwy 7 (former McGarvey Coffee property)
11. Health in the Park Update
12. Rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Associate
Planner (Mr. Kelley), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
Guests: Mr. Bob Cunningham (Melrose Development) and Mr. Dennis Sutliff (ESG Architects).
1. SWLRT Master and Subordinate Funding Agreements
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and explained that there are up to five subordinate
funding agreements between the City and Metropolitan Council. He advised that Met Council
has informed the City that if it approves the subordinate funding agreement for any of the LRCIs,
the City must pay the entire cost of the design and environmental review even if the City chose
to terminate the design process at any point.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was now inclined to take the Beltline LRCI off the list at this
time based on the issues detailed in the staff report and based on further review of the
development patterns in this area. She added she felt the Xenwood underpass should remain a
top priority.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he did not believe the cost of the Beltline underpass was worth
the benefit based on the data provided by staff and agreed that the City should not approve
funding for the Beltline LRCI. He stated he would support the Xenwood LRCI, particularly
because the City is investing a lot of money in this area and it makes sense to move forward with
designing the Xenwood underpass.
Councilmember Spano stated that while the Southwest LRT project represents the best chance
for the City to complete the Beltline grade separation, the reality is that the grade separation does
not fix the issues in the immediate area and it makes more sense to do a grade separation at
Beltline and CSAH 25. He added that the cost implications of grade separation at Beltline are so
large and he had little confidence this LRCI would get funded, therefore, he could not support
the Beltline LRCI.
Councilmember Hallfin expressed frustration with the process but understood the rationale
provided by staff for not funding the design of the Beltline underpass and was okay with pulling
out the Beltline LRCI.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of February 2, 2015
Councilmember Brausen stated his opposition to the Beltline underpass and stated he was okay
with doing the Xenwood underpass.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the City should not commit to funding the Beltline underpass and
stated he was okay with the Xenwood underpass.
It was the consensus of the City Council to commit at this time to fully fund the entire design and
environmental costs for the following four LRCIs in St. Louis Park: Xenwood Avenue
underpass, Lynn Avenue extension, Beltline Boulevard/CSAH 25 intersection improvements,
and Louisiana Station trail. It was also the consensus of the City Council that the City would not
commit to funding the entire design and environmental costs for the Beltline Boulevard LRCI.
2. 13th Lane and Texas Avenue Redevelopment Proposals
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Bob Cunningham from Melrose
Development and Mr. Dennis Sutliff from ESG Architects. He provided background
information regarding the excess land study that identified the 13th Lane parcel and the Texas
Avenue parcel as excess land parcels. He explained that the properties would need to be
reguided in the Comprehensive Plan and the properties rezoned to a planned unit development.
He noted that the new PUD ordinance contains a minimum two-acre size for PUDs but allows
PUDs on smaller sites if a higher quality development design can be achieved. He stated that the
City has received a number of inquiries for commercial development of the parcels and in the
past week received another inquiry from a developer interested in multi-family housing.
Mr. Cunningham stated they have been interested in this site for a long time and have developed
a concept consisting of 39 units on the 13th Lane parcel and 26 units on the Texas Avenue parcel
for a total of 65 units. He stated they have designed a 95% efficient building that would be built
without any governmental assistance that includes 20 affordable units at 60% AMI and another
20 affordable units at 80% AMI, with a unit mix of 60% two-bedroom units and 40% one-
bedroom units. He stated the unit rentals are approximately $1.65 per foot versus a median
rental of $2.15-$2.35 per foot and all units will have market rate finishes. He presented several
preliminary concept drawings and explained that there are no elevators in the buildings, which
helps reduce construction costs, with entrances to the second level units at the sides of each
building. He advised they would like to enter into a predevelopment agreement with the City in
order to move forward with further details.
Mr. Sutliff described the preliminary floor plans and stated there are six units on the ground floor
and seven units on the floors above and those units would enter above by a common stair with a
corridor at the top of the stairs. He stated each building has four front stoops on the 13th Lane
side similar to a private home intended to respect the residential properties to the south. He
presented an elevation drawing and stated the intent is to get enough variety and character on the
front of the buildings and to add residential features to the building that fit in with the residential
neighborhood. He advised there would be three buildings on the 13th Lane site and two buildings
on the Texas Avenue site.
Councilmember Brausen stated he liked the affordability and sustainability components of the
project and was excited about the project. He noted there would be some open space
requirements with the PUD requiring a variance but he was okay with the PUD concept, adding
this appears to be an ideal use for the properties and he would support it.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of February 2, 2015
Councilmember Mavity spoke in favor of the project and was happy to see the affordability
component of the project. She requested further information about the new PUD ordinance and
DORA requirements.
Mr. Kelley stated the primary reason for the PUD is due to the proximity of the buildings to each
other, adding there is still some work to be done related to DORA and how to meet those
requirements.
Councilmember Lindberg felt this was an interesting project but was concerned about the
proximity to single family homes. He stated he recognized the merits of the project but was
concerned about setting a precedent and asked whether at some point this Council or a future
Council would be obligated to approve a project with similar setback issues or other issues, e.g.,
lack of outdoor space, because of Council’s approval of this PUD project.
Ms. McMonigal explained that the new PUD ordinance allows Council to make these decisions
on a case-by-case basis and represents a discretionary action of the City Council.
Mr. Harmening requested information about the length of time the developer would commit to
providing affordable housing.
Mr. Cunningham stated they would not want to make a commitment at this time and would like
the opportunity to work with the City on eligibility requirements, adding they are not getting any
government assistance and feel it would be best if they operated this aspect themselves and
would be happy to work with the City on this to make it happen.
Councilmember Spano spoke in favor of working with Melrose Development on the project.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and a rezoning to a planned unit development to allow the proposed development to
occur. It was also the consensus of the City Council to enter into an agreement to continue
working solely with Melrose Development.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Rec Center
Manager (Mr. Eisold), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Leadership Award
Ms. Michele Snyder, Executive Director of the Minnesota Recreation and Park
Association (MRPA) stated that MRPA’s annual awards program is designed to honor
professionals who have demonstrated excellence in their profession and this year, the
Leadership Award was presented to Ms. Walsh for her tremendous impact on the
Association. She stated that Ms. Walsh served on the Board from 2012-2014 and served
as Board President in 2013. She stated Ms. Walsh spearheaded a task force whose
mission was to review programs and provide recommendations to the Board and staff
toward more stable program levels that was essential to ensuring MRPA’s long term
success. She stated MRPA was proud to honor Ms. Walsh as this year’s Leadership
Award recipient and thanked her for her leadership and contributions.
Ms. Walsh thanked Ms. Snyder and MRPA for the Leadership Award and thanked
Council for allowing the City to participate in MRPA.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Closed Executive Session Minutes January 12, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes January 12, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2015
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes January 20, 2015
Councilmember Brausen requested that the tenth full paragraph on page 4 be revised to
state “Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of the project and stated he thought the
proposed development would generate substantial rents at market rates and was happy to
see 20% of the units as affordable and anticipated that any government assistance would
be very nominal. He added he was concerned about market forces driving up the rent
prices because of the highly desirable nature of this property.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 15-013 for 2015 Liquor License Renewals for the license year
term of March 1, 2015 through March 1, 2016.
4b. Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License
Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
• Resolution No. 15-014 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
November 28, 2014, at Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Ave. So.
• Resolution No. 15-015 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
November 6, 2014, at St. Louis Park Liquor, 6316 Minnetonka Blvd.
• Resolution No. 15-016 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
November 6, 2014, at Vitali’s Bistro, 5101 Minnetonka Blvd.
• Resolution No. 15-017 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
November 28, 2014, at Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd.
4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2462-15 amending Chapter 36 of
the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to Planned Unit Developments, and to approve
the Ordinance summary for publication.
4d. Authorize staff to purchase up to $760,000 of office partitions, workstations, and
furniture with state contract pricing from Hendrickson PSG.
4e. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of December 27, 2014
through January 23, 2015.
4f. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission meeting minutes of November 17,
2014.
4g. Approve for filing Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 7, 2015.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2015
5. Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to appoint
Curtis Rahman and Duane Spiegle to the Southwest LRT Business Advisory Committee
for two-year terms.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Facility for Outdoor Refrigerated Ice and Other Uses
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and requested authorization to enter into a contract
with RSP Architects for the design development phase of the proposed outdoor
refrigerated ice facility and authorization to enter into a contract with the St. Louis Park
Hockey Association for their capital contributions and use of the facility.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Hockey Association for their commitment to this project and
their financial contributions. He felt this was an exciting project and would add a lot to
the Rec Center as well as provide an additional place for hockey and other events.
Councilmember Spano thanked the Hockey Association for its financial contributions.
He stated that Council has been discussing this project for a long time and felt this project
would be a great addition to the community.
Councilmember Lindberg thanked the Hockey Association for its partnership with the
City on this project.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
authorize staff to enter into the design development phase with RSP Architects for the
construction of an outdoor refrigerated ice facility and negotiate a final agreement with
the St. Louis Park Hockey Association relating to their financial contribution and use of
the facility.
Councilmember Mavity stated she felt this was a great project and represented a good
investment for the City. She urged the City to remain cognizant of gender equity and
making sure the City is investing in projects that will support girls as much as boys.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
8b. SWLRT Master and Subordinate Funding Agreements
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Master Funding Agreement
between the City and Metropolitan Council along with up to five Subordinate Funding
Agreements for the Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs). She explained there
are individual agreements for each of the LRCIs that Council has discussed. The
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2015
agreements provide that the City will pay for design and environmental costs for these
items over the next year. She pointed out the agreements are not for construction of the
LRCIs and there will be an opportunity in approximately one year for the City to decide
whether to move forward on constructing the LRCIs, at which time staff would come
back with subordinate funding agreements to fund construction of the projects.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
a Master Funding Agreement between the City and Metropolitan Council to provide for
the transfer of funds between the agencies.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve Subordinate Funding Agreements between the City and Metropolitan Council
for each of the following LRCIs:
Xenwood Avenue $382,607
Lynn Avenue Extension $72,230
Beltline Blvd/CSAH 25 Intersection Improvements $126,943
Louisiana Station Trail $68,617
It was noted by Councilmember Spano that the motion specifically did not include
agreement for the Beltline Boulevard Underpass ($1,192,792).
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs invited residents to attend the community conversation on mental health
sponsored by Health in the Park on Sunday, February 8th, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilmember Lindberg invited residents to attend the State of the City on Thursday,
February 5th, at 7:30 a.m. in Council Chambers.
Councilmember Brausen invited residents to attend an informational meeting hosted by
AAA on Wednesday, February 4th, at 6:30 p.m. regarding Highway 100 reconstruction
projects.
Councilmember Mavity announced the annual meeting for neighborhood and community
leaders on Thursday, February 12th, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Dispatcher Julie Shipman
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to recognize Dispatcher Julie
Shipman for her nearly 33 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City
Council.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Julie for her years of service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Dispatcher Julie Shipman
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO DISPATCHER JULIE SHIPMAN
WHEREAS, Julie Shipman began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 33
years ago on March 8, 1982; and
WHEREAS, Julie never imagined on her first day that she would still be here 33 years later;
and
WHEREAS, Julie has seen countless technological changes in dispatch, moving from
typewriters, to reel to reel, to computers, to four computers at each dispatch console which
include five monitors and four mice; and
WHEREAS, Julie has maintained her sharp wit and sense of humor throughout the years;
and
WHEREAS, Julie has done her job with a sense of pride and investment in the St. Louis
Park Police organization; and
WHEREAS, Julie will spend her “non-working” time enjoying the beautiful property she
and her husband own in Minnetrista with a multitude of critters including dogs, cats, reptiles,
amphibians, and exotic roaches. Julie plans to pursue her “encore career” by expanding her
horse and housecleaning businesses and spending time at a stable working with horses and doing
anything outside where there are no phones or radios;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Dispatcher Julie
Shipman for her great contributions and nearly 33 years of dedicated service to the City of St.
Louis Park and wish her the best in her retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the sewer service line at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
P.I.D. 08-117-21-44-0043.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Chad Mittelbusher, owner of the single family residence at 6718 Minnetonka
Boulevard, has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his/her
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line
repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined
to be $9,800.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
6718 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 08-117-21-44-0043
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 6718 Minnetonka Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $9,800.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 4%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3908 Sunset Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the water service line at 3908 Sunset Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0120.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Andrew Fink and Kristina Arcara, owners of the single family residence at 3908
Sunset Boulevard, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for
their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
This is a 2015 repair that was made between the home and the curb box and is not impacted by the
City’s new waterline ownership policy. Homeowners are still responsible for water lines repairs that
occur between their home and the curb box located in the right of way.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the
City to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total
eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $3,590.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall , Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3908 Sunset Boulevard.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3908 SUNSET BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0120
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3908 Sunset Boulevard, have petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 3908 Sunset Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $3,590.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
4%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
7.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
TITLE: Adopt Resolution Supporting Move MN Campaign
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Supporting Move MN Campaign.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to support the Move MN
Campaign?
SUMMARY: Members of the Health in the Park Connect the Park! workgroup have asked that
the City Council adopt a resolution of support for the Move MN Campaign. Move MN is a
statewide coalition of more than 200 business, organizations and local governments committed
to fixing Minnesota’s long-term transportation problems by securing a comprehensive
transportation funding solution. The Council discussed supporting this group at the January 5
study session as a part of the Review of 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities.
The group is calling on the Minnesota Legislature to pass a comprehensive transportation
funding solution in 2015 that requires additional transparency and efficiency for current
resources. New funding will enable the state to properly maintain and improve transportation
assets that expand access and opportunity for all and create high paying jobs.
A safe, efficient and reliable transportation system is essential to strengthening Minnesota’s
economic competitiveness and maintaining our quality of life. Minnesota’s economy is one of
the fastest growing in the country, yet too many of our roads and bridges are in desperate need of
repair and Minnesotans do not have convenient and safe connections to schools and jobs.
Staff is requesting that Council approve a resolution supporting the Move MN campaign.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Adopt Resolution Supporting Move MN Campaign
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION FOR SUPPORT OF THE MOVE MN CAMPAIGN
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saint Louis Park supports efforts for a new state-
wide comprehensive transportation funding package to address Minnesota’s $50 billion
transportation deficit; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Louis Park agrees that transportation investments provide
benefits beyond new infrastructure, but also create jobs, build economic competitiveness, and
improve the quality of life for all Minnesotans by enabling the state to properly maintain and
improve transportation assets that expand access and opportunity for all; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Louis Park affirms that to be effective, the new state-wide
transportation funding package must be:
• Comprehensive, including funding for roads, highways, transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities throughout Minnesota.
• Balanced across transportation modes and between Greater Minnesota and the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area, serving all Minnesotans equitably.
• Sustainable, including long-term solutions that will grow with the economy to meet
the states growing transportation needs.
• Dedicated to transportation.
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saint Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby supports the Move MN Campaign.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Minutes: 4e
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 7, 2015
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Voigt, Terry Gips, Nancy Rose, Rachel Harris, Alex Sundvall,
Ryan Griffin, Karen Kaphingst and Mark Eilers.
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Cindy Larson O’Neil, Chris Anderson and Renee McGarvey
STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Elkin
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
2. The minutes of the December 3, 2014, meeting were unanimously approved.
3. Guest Presenter –John Bilotta, University of Minnesota Extension Services
The Water, Land and Native Landscapes Work Group had previously heard Mr. Bilotta’s
presentation and had asked him to address the full commission. Mr. Bilotta’s gave a 30
minute presentation on stormwater runoff and its relationship to impervious surface. Mr.
Bilotta stressed that this was a brief summary of his presentation and that he usually
presents to decision makers such as planners, council persons and commissions in a half-
day seminar setting.
Commissioner Rose made a motion: “The water-land-wildlife work group proposes that
the St. Louis Park City Council host a presentation of NEMO for a combined group of
the Council, the Environmental Commission and affected City Staff to establish a
common base of knowledge for future decisions regarding stormwater, development and
redevelopment, and land management.” The motion passed unanimously.
4. Commissioner Gips raised the issue that the commission would be required to hold an
election of new officers as per the by-laws of the commission. The Staff had been
unaware of this requirement and had not prepared to hold the election. After further
discussion and research, it was determined that the commission could hold elections at
the next meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Sundvall and seconded by
Commissioner Eilers.
5. 2015 Goals- Phil announced that most of the work groups had submitted 2015 goals to
him and that he would send them out to the ESC for review. Chair Harris commented
that the Education and Action Work Group included a broad list of activities and asked if
it should be edited to a more manageable list. Commissioner Gips stated that he would
consider this after viewing all of the work plans.
Phil pointed out that since the departure of Commissioner Hillstrom, the Communications
Work Group was in need of leadership and asked for a volunteer to take that position.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2015
Having no takers, he asked that current commissioners look for a volunteer outside the
commission to fill this role.
Commissioner Griffin proposed forming a Transportation Work Group. Chair Harris
stated that the Health in the Park already had such a group – Connect the Park. Ryan
stated that his idea would be focused on reducing the carbon footprint by reducing the use
of cars. After further discussion, Ryan made a motion to form a Transportation Work
Group. Commissioner Eilers seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
6. Vision Statement- discussion on the vision statement was tabled to a future meeting.
7. Phil gave updates on activities related to the Environment and Sustainability Commission
including:
• The Energy Work Group recently won a grant from the CERTS program to have the
organization complete the City’s B3 energy use assessment.
• The request to join Xcel Energy’s Partner in Energy program was moving on to
Council for approval.
• The City of St. Louis Park is in the process of hiring a Sustainability Coordinator to
be responsible for supporting the ESC. It is unclear at this time when or what
responsibilities will be included with the position.
• City Staff had requested some clarification on the proposed Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing Policy (EPP) and had planned meetings with the EPP Work
Group to understand the policy.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Minutes: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 21, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Richard Person
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice-Chair Johnston-Madison opened the meeting.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 2015
Commissioner Carper made a motion to approve the minutes of January 7, 2015.
Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1
(Robertson abstained).
3. Old Business
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Outside storage in the IP District
Applicant: James T. Smith
Case No.: 14-29-ZA
(tabled on January 7, 2015)
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He reviewed
the three proposed amendments which were presented to the Commission on January 7,
2015. The Commission tabled consideration for further discussion, and requested staff
meet with the applicant to review the proposed ordinance and recommend changes.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff met with James Smith, an attorney representing Martin
Bell. Staff confirmed its position on the first two proposed amendments which is that the
City Council and City Attorney already stated the ordinance is clear and does not need to
be amended.
Mr. Morrison said at the meeting with Mr. Smith staff suggested revisions to the third
option, allowing outdoor storage as a conditional use in the Industrial Park zoning
district. Mr. Morrison stated the importance of reviewing the applicant’s request in the
context of how it would impact all properties zoned IP along with the impacts it would
have on neighboring properties. He reviewed the conditions, with recent revisions.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015
Mr. Morrison mentioned the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan that guide
the city when considering zoning amendments. He spoke about the goals and strategies
for industrial uses.
Mr. Morrison discussed how the city uses performance standards, zoning districts and the
zoning map to successfully mitigate the impacts of industrial uses on adjacent properties.
He reviewed the purpose and intent of each of the three industrial zoning districts. Mr.
Morrison presented and discussed a table which compared permitted uses in the Industrial
Park and General Industrial Districts. He stated the definitions of principal and accessory
uses.
Mr. Morrison addressed comments regarding other existing uses occurring in the area.
He noted proposals should be compared to legal uses, the Comprehensive Plan, and to the
purpose/intent of the zoning district. A proposed use should not be compared to a legally
non-conforming use.
Mr. Morrison spoke about locations of IG and IP properties in the city and their
proximity to residential.
Mr. Morrison closed by saying staff recommends denial of the proposed amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Outdoor Storage and the Accessory Use definition.
Commissioner Peilen asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments.
Mr. Morrison responded that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments
and has recommended denial.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked how often and what kind of requests the city receives for
outdoor storage.
Mr. Morrison responded one or two requests may be received a year. He said the request
typically comes from landscapers.
James Smith, applicant, attorney representing Martin Bell, provided a summary of the
request. He spoke about Mr. Bell’s properties being linked historically due to parking
purposes.
Mr. Smith thanked staff for meeting with him recently to discuss concerns. He said the
proposed conditions are designed to limit the nuisance factor and distinguishes it from the
General Industrial district. He stated the proposal is a rational approach to the overall
problem. A property is being used which fosters employment. When the lease was
entered into with Tim’s Tree Service there was reliance on past use. He said the
proposal is an attempt to remedy what the City Council described as an unintended
consequence of the code. He added that the Council encouraged the process and the
possibility of conditional use permit.
Commissioner Carper commented on the importance of the zoning studies conducted in
1989 and 1991, and the extended period of time the Edgewood/Florida Ave. has been
zoned as Industrial Park. He spoke about the unintended consequences the proposed
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015
amendments could create for other areas of the city. He said he recommends denial of
the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Robertson said he believes the current zoning is effective and said he does
not see a good reason for the proposed amendments. He said he recommends denial.
Commissioner Tatalovich said he is concerned about consequences of changing the code
across the city. He thanked staff for the additional information.
Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments to Section 36-4 pertaining to the Accessory use or structure
definition, to Section 36-243(c)(6) pertaining to Parking lots as an exclusive principal
land use in the Industrial Park Zoning District, and to Section 36-243(d) to include
outdoor storage as a Conditional Use. Commissioner Robertson seconded them motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, said the item is scheduled for City Council consideration
on February 2, 2015. Mr. Smith, applicant, requested that the item be scheduled for City
Council consideration on February 17, 2015.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
Mr. Walther briefly discussed a Methodist Hospital expansion request which is scheduled
for a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2015.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Submitted by,
Nancy Sells
Adm. Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
approving proposed use of 2015 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program Funds and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin
County and any Third Party Agreements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made
for the allocation of $199,308 in 2015 CDBG funds?
SUMMARY: Each year the City must decide how to use its annual allocation of CDBG Funds.
CDBG funds are US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds distributed through
Hennepin County. The allocation amount for cities within the county is based on a calculation of
2010 census poverty data. The City must submit its proposed use of the allocation to Hennepin
County by February 26th. Prior to submittal, the City must hold a public hearing. The hearing
and official City Council action is scheduled for February 17th.
This year’s proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the City’s priorities to preserve existing
housing and increase affordable ownership opportunities. Ninety-six percent of the allocation, or
$191,808 of the $199,308, focuses on assisting low-income residents with emergency repairs,
rehab loans, improvement projects and affordable ownership opportunities. The remaining
amount is proposed for youth park programming at Meadowbrook Manor Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: CDBG funds allow cities discretion (within
the HUD guidelines) to fund projects that meet the national low income objectives and the needs
of cities. CDBG funding is expected to remain close to the fiscal year 2014 funding level;
however, the federal budget has yet to be finalized. 2014 funding levels will be used for planning
purposes until the 2015 allocation is finalized. St. Louis Park will receive an estimated $199,308
in 2015. The 2015 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Staff anticipates
the proposed projects can expend the funds in a timely manner as has been our historical practice
of fully expending CDBG funds. Final funding amount may vary slightly from the estimate.
Staff will keep Council apprised of actual funding amounts.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Program Descriptions
Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing on Proposed Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The national objectives of the CDBG program are to benefit low and
moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slum or blight and/or to meet a particular
urgent community development need. From a policy perspective, the City Council has typically
focused CDBG funds on “sticks and bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income
families, for both single-family (SF) owners and multifamily housing residents. A small portion
of funds have also been allocated to support public services for St. Louis Park Housing Authority
(SLPHA) residents and park programming for low-income youth.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the City’s
priorities to preserve existing housing and increase affordable ownership opportunities. This
year’s proposed allocation is summarized in Table 1 below. Ninety-six percent of the allocation
focuses on assisting low-income residents with emergency repairs, rehab loans, home
renovations and affordable ownership opportunities. The remaining amount is proposed for
youth park programming at Meadowbrook Manor Park.
Historically, the City has allocated CDBG funds to non-profit affordable housing providers to
assist with their building renovations. Perspectives is requesting funds for patio door and deck
replacement and Wayside is requesting funds for both interior and exterior rehab. The St. Louis
Park Housing Authority has also requested funds to assist in rehabbing scattered site homes in St.
Louis Park. Homes Within Reach is requesting funds to assist in purchasing and rehabbing a
home to provide an affordable home ownership opportunity. CDBG funds are just one funding
source for Perspectives, Wayside, Homes Within Reach, and the Housing Authority to complete
these projects and will be leveraged with other resources to fund the project.
CDBG funds are the only source of funding for the Low Income Single Family Emergency
Repair Program and Home Rehab Loan that serve St. Louis Park residents. The amount
requested each year is based on past experience on the demand and ability to complete the rehab
and emergency grant projects during the CDBG grant year. CDBG is also the primary source of
funding for the Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook.
Table 1: Proposed 2014 CDBG Allocation
Project Activity
Proposed Ongoing
Activity Allocation
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $50,000 yes
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $60,000 yes
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $20,000 yes
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – Rehab for scattered site home $10,808 yes
Perspectives, Inc. – Patio Doors and Decks $30,000 no
Wayside – Rehab at Wayside Supportive Housing $21,000 no
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook Park $7,500 yes
Total $199,308
NEXT STEPS: February 27, 2014 is the deadline for submission of CDBG Application to
Hennepin County.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing on Proposed Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
Proposed Program Descriptions
Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $50,000
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or
less of the median area income, or $29,050 for a single person household, and assets less than
$25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000 for emergencies such as leaking roofs, plumbing
repairs, water heaters or code violations. Community Action Partners for Suburban Hennepin
County (CAPSH) currently administers this program for the City. This is an ongoing CDBG
activity.
Low Income Single Family Deferred Loan Program- $60,000
This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income
of 50% or less of the median area income based on family size ($29,050 for a household of one,
$41,450 for a household of 4) and assets less than $25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to
bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term maintenance free housing. The maximum
loan amount is $30,000 and is forgiven after 15 years. Repayment is required if homeowners sell the
property before the 15-year period expires.
This program is administered by Hennepin County Housing staff. There is no longer a waiting list for
the low income single family deferred loan program; however, there is still a need for this program in
our community. Continued funding, along with the program income realized from repayment of
previous CDBG deferred loans, should make it possible to serve two to five residents depending on
project scope. Three residents received a deferred loan in 2014.
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes Within Reach $20,000
Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and
lease the land for 99 years. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and Hennepin
County HOME funds, and Homes within Reach administers this activity. Homes within Reach
has purchased twelve homes in the city that have been sold to low income families.
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – Cabinet renovations at scattered site homes - $10,808
The SLP Housing Authority provides housing to low income residents that are typically below
50% median income. The HA owns and manages 37 scattered site homes throughout the city.
The HA has requested $10,808 to assist with replacing cabinets at scattered site homes. Each
cabinet replacement project is expected to cost $8,000. CDBG funds will be utilized to assist in
cabinet replacement at two scattered site homes identified in the CFP.
Wayside House, Inc. –Rehab - $21,000
Wayside is requesting $21,000 in CDBG funds for upgrades and improvements to their
Supportive Housing apartment building. This rehab project will include re-carpeting the
community office area (staff offices and community meeting area), installing new security
cameras, resurfacing and restriping the parking lot, and rehabbing two resident bathrooms.
Wayside Supportive Housing provides permanent supportive housing for 20 families with
children ages 0-18. Wayside House’s mission is to provide treatment, housing and social
services to women who want to get sober from drugs and alcohol and live a life of recovery.
About 95% of families who enter program meet the federal guidelines of poverty with incomes
of 5K to 10k per year.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing on Proposed Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
Perspectives Louisiana Court Patio Door and deck replacement project - $30,000
The project replaces 12 deteriorating patio doors with 8 new energy efficient patio doors and 4
new energy efficient windows. It also repairs 8 decks and removes 4 Juliet balconies. The
stucco will also be re-dashed on both buildings since water penetration from the patio doors has
caused chipping/cracking.
Perspectives ' supportive housing program is located in five apartment buildings at Louisiana
Court. This project will be for two of the buildings (2759 & 2765 Louisiana Court) utilized for
their Permanent Housing program. Perspectives provides comprehensive supportive housing for
homeless women and children. Women and children are the fastest growing homeless population
in Hennepin County and in the Nation. CDBG funds will assist in financing this project.
Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor Parks - $7,500
The Park and Recreation Department provides park programming to children at the
Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Community. The $7,500 would provide an enhanced level of
programming and ensure affordable registration fees. The youth park programming has been
funded with CDBG funds since 2007. Meadowbrook Manor Park is CDBG eligible based on
the poverty levels in this neighborhood.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing on Proposed Allocation of 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 15 - ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2015 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has developed a proposal for the use of 2015
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 17, 2015 to obtain the views of
citizens on housing and community development needs and priorities and the City's proposed use
of $199,308 from the 2015 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the 2015 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party
Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2015 Community Development Block Grant
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the final amount of FY2015 CDBG
available to the city be different from the preliminary amount provided to the city, the City
Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or
decrease in funding.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Project Activity Allocation
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $50,000
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $60,000
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $20,000
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – Rehab for scattered sites $10,808
Wayside House, Inc. – Rehab at Wayside Supportive Housing $21,000
Perspectives – Patio Door and Deck Replacement $30,000
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook Park $7,500
Total $199,308
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving the franchise transfer with
conditions. Note: Based on on-going negotiations, it is possible that a slightly revised resolution
may be presented to Council for consideration by or before the Council meeting. If so, an
explanation will be provided, including at the meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is staff in alignment with Council’s position regarding the
proposed transfer, especially with the interests of existing Comcast customers in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: On June 18, 2014, the City received formal notice from Comcast that they plan a
series of transactions that affect the St. Louis Park Cable TV franchise. A cable TV franchise
transfer is guided by state and federal law, and the City has the authority to evaluate the legal,
technical and financial capability of the franchisee.
With the approval of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council, the city
partnered with the Minnesota Association of Cable Television Advisors (MACTA) for a detailed
financial review of the newly created franchisee, GreatLand Communications, Inc. (also known
as Midwest Cable). Separately, Front Range Consulting has conducted a franchise fee review of
Comcast for 2011, 2012 and 2013.
The attached resolution approves the transfer with conditions that have been proposed to protect
current Comcast customers in St. Louis Park as much as possible, given the City’s federally
limited authority in franchise transfers. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission, which
unanimously recommended approval of the resolution on February 11, 2015, and City staff
developed the conditions through numerous meetings and discussions, and after reviewing the
actions taken in other cities to approve the transfer. The end result is a resolution supported by
Brian Grogan, the city’s counsel for this project, who met with Council to receive direction and
hear Council input, especially regarding customer service in St. Louis Park. Mr. Grogan and city
staff will attend this Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The financial review by MACTA cost
$5,800. Outside legal counsel expenses to this date are $10,398, for legal review and
negotiations, bringing the total expenses for the franchise transfer process to $16,198. These will
be reimbursed as part of the transfer approval. The franchise fee compliance audit for 2011,
2012 and 2013 cost $8,500, and a settlement of $8,000 reimbursement of underpaid franchise
fees is part of the transfer approval. Reimbursements will be from Comcast to the City.
VISION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s role in the Comcast franchise transfer is to evaluate the legal,
technical and financial capability of franchisee/transferee GreatLand Connections, Inc., formerly
known as SpinCo or Midwest Cable.
What will be the impact on customers if the franchise transfer is approved?
• The company name would change, and over time, policies would change
• Email addresses would change
• Login credentials to check billing statements online or check email remotely would
change (new user name and password). Related web addresses could change,
• Customers might have to reapply for direct bill pay
• Telephone numbers would not change
• The customer equipment to receive cable channels would not change immediately, but
could be switched later
Legal Review:
Moss & Barnett attorney Brian Grogan has collaborated throughout the transfer process with the
several other attorneys in the Twin Cities that specialize in telecommunications law, and has
handled negotiations with Comcast and GreatLand. He described the transaction for Council and
the Telecommunications Advisory Commission at a Special Study Session December 15, 2014.
Comcast has voluntarily agreed to divest itself of four million customers as a result of the
merger, with 2.5 million customers divested to a new entity, Midwest Cable, that will own the
Twin Cities market and will be renamed “GreatLand Connections.” Grogan explained that
Midwest Cable does not exist today and will be a new publicly traded company owned 1/3 by
Charter and 2/3 by Comcast shareholders and run by a separate Board of Directors. GreatLand
executives have ties to the former Insight Communications, which was the ninth largest cable
company in the United States until purchased by Time Warner Cable in 2011. Insight had a
history of partnering with vendors to run their franchises. All local field operations and technical
personnel will be GreatLand employees and other operational services will be provided by
Charter personnel and include customer service, billing and collections, marketing and sales, and
administrative services.
The question was asked at the Study Session: what if St. Louis Park denies the transfer request?
Mr. Grogan explained that in addition to a court fight, Comcast would carve out the St. Louis
Park franchise area and contract for all services with Midwest and Charter anyway, because
Comcast won’t be operating any other franchises in the state of Minnesota.
MACTA Financial Review:
MACTA’s financial review of GreatLand was conducted by Ashpaugh and Sculco and Front
Range Consulting. The report found that Comcast, GreatLand and Charter would not provide
enough information in order for the consultants to complete their analysis of the business
arrangements between the three companies. Key statements in the report include:
“The Consultants have identified financial impacts that suggest Midwest Cable may be incurring
debt levels that exceed the industry norm of 5 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation,
and amortization (EBITDA). All information provided show Midwest with no cash at start-up
and with limited ability to acquire cash absent reductions in spending or increases in rates
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
resulting in little, if any, working capital. All of these factors point towards a stand-alone
company that may experience a difficult financial future, at least in the short term, without
reductions to capital expenditures, customer services, franchise obligations and other cash
conserving activities and / or rate increases to support its obligations under the anticipated debt
load and the agreements under the CSA and TSA for management fees and cost reimbursement.”
Franchise Fee Audit:
Front Range Inc. conducted a franchise fee audit of Comcast for 2011-2013 which estimates
underreported franchise fees between $10,700 and $12,700. The audit found that the HD
technology fee was not correctly identified as cable TV revenue on some of the cable TV
bundles. Comcast acknowledged $6,225 in under payments, offered that amount as a settlement,
and pointed out that they paid the City $1,855,178 in franchise fees over the 3 years, for an
underpayment of 0.3% of the total. The transfer approval lists a settlement of $8,000 as a
condition for approval.
St. Louis Park’s Conditions for Approving the Franchise Transfer:
Per Council direction, staff worked closely with the Telecommunications Advisory Commission
to develop conditions that protect customers as much as possible, while monitoring any transfer
approvals in other cities. Mr. Grogan advised on the feasibility of proposed conditions and
conducted the negotiations with Comcast, GreatLand, and Charter attorneys.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission passed a motion to approve the transfer with
these conditions on February 11, 2015.
• Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable (also to be
known as GreatLand Connections Inc.) shall execute and provide the City with a written
guaranty specifying that subscriber rates and charges in the City will not increase as a
result of the costs of the proposed Transaction.
• New Grantee will participate in quarterly meetings with members of the City or the
City’s designees for the first two (2) years following the close of the Transaction to verify
that subscriber issues and concerns are being addressed by New Grantee or any other
entity that may have interaction with subscribers within the City. If issues are not being
addressed, New Grantee agrees to meet with the City, as directed, to explain steps being
undertaken to address subscriber concerns and New Grantee will provide regular and
timely updates to the City to provide verification of corrective actions being undertaken
to address unresolved issues.
• New Grantee will maintain an “escalated complaint program” to escalate unresolved
cable television complaints from subscribers. One or more specifically identified
employee(s) of New Grantee shall be available to City via email for reporting issues.
These specifically identified employee(s) of New Grantee will have the ability to escalate
service issues to a senior officer of New Grantee or New Grantee’s parent company when
necessary.
• New Grantee will commit to comply with Section 28-1-19 of the Franchise and submit
quarterly reports to verify compliance with applicable FCC customer service standards
regarding answering calls, wait times, hold times and related call answering statistics.
• No later than twelve months from the date this Resolution was adopted and upon ninety
(90) days’ advance written notice from the City, New Grantee will make available to the
City one (1) high definition PEG channel (“HD PEG channel”) on the cable system.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
• No sooner than twenty-four (24) months from the activation of the first HD PEG
channel, upon ninety (90) days’ written notice from the City, New Grantee shall convert a
then existing SD channel to HD format such that the SD version of that PEG channel will
be eliminated at the time of conversion to HD.
• New Grantee will make available to the City the ability to place PEG channel
programming information on the interactive channel guide by putting the City in contact
with the electronic programing guide vendor (“EPG provider”) that provides the guide
service. New Grantee will be responsible for providing the designations and instructions
necessary to ensure the channels will appear on the programming guide throughout the
jurisdictions that are part of the City and the costs of any necessary headend equipment
associated therewith. The City shall be responsible for providing programming
information to the EPG provider and for any costs charged by the EPG provider, unless
New Grantee is required to pay for PEG EPG costs per applicable law or national
commitments.
• Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of adoption of this Resolution, submit
payment to the City in the amount of Eight Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($8,000.00)
(“Payment”). The City and Grantee agree that the Payment represents full and complete
settlement of all claims during the Review Period. It is further agreed that the Payment
shall not constitute “gross revenue” in whole or in part as that term is defined in the
Franchise.
• New Grantee shall maintain and provide (as Grantee currently provides), the commitment
of free cable TV service to schools and City buildings listed in Exhibit A of the Franchise
as an expense for the New Grantee.
• New Grantee shall be subject to available enforcement procedures and remedies as if
these obligations were set forth in the Franchise.
• Comcast shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of adoption of this Resolution, fully
reimburse City for all of the City’s reasonable costs and expenses in connection with the
City’s review of the proposed Transaction, including without limitation, all costs incurred
by the City for experts and attorneys retained by the City to assist in the review as well as
notice and publication costs (“Reimbursement”).
Other Communities Approving the Franchise Transfer:
Most of the franchise authorities in the Twin Cities have approved the transfer with conditions
that relate to local Public, Educational and Government (PEG) channels, which are called Park
TV in St. Louis Park. Access to the electronic program guide (EPG) and high definition (HD)
channels over the next few years are common to most of the transfers. Several of the consortia
that have been negotiating new franchises with Comcast for three or more years required an
extension of the existing franchise as a condition of approval. The existing St. Louis Park
franchise expires in January 2021.
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Richfield) approved the transfer with conditions that protect the local PEG channels, including
an HD channel.
Northwest Cable TV (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove,
New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth and Robbinsdale) approved the transfer with the condition of a
franchise renewal.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
The Minneapolis City Council Ways and Means committee approved the transfer with conditions
on January 26, 2014. The conditions include three HD channels over time, adding access to
Comcast video on demand (VOD) and electronic program guide (EPG), a $40,000 settlement of
a franchise fee review, increased access fee from $1.50 to $1.75, and reimbursement of transfer
costs. Minneapolis’ franchise, like St. Louis Park’s, ends in 2021.
The Ramsey/Washington Suburban Cable Commission (Birchwood Village, Dellwood. Grant,
Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Maplewood, North Saint Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, White Bear
Lake, White Bear Township and Willernie) approved the transfer with conditions including a
franchise extension. Negotiations for a new franchise will take place during 2015.
North Suburban Cable Commission (Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada,
Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville and St. Anthony) has approved the transfer
with conditions and an extension of their current franchise for two years. Conditions include an
HD local PEG channel and access to the EPG.
Coon Rapids has approved the transfer with conditions.
North Metro Communications Commission (Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake,
Lexington, Lino Lakes, and Spring Lake Park) has approved the transfer with conditions.
Bloomington approved the transfer on January 26, 2015, with the condition of accepting a new
franchise which had been under negotiation for three years. The new franchise has some
improvements over the franchise which expires April, 2015. Key terms of the new franchise
include a ten year franchise to replace a fifteen year franchise, two HD channels within eighteen
months, three PEG channels returned to Comcast, and an increased PEG fee from $ .55 to $1.40.
St. Paul is close to resolution but has not approved the transfer yet.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE
AND CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE GRANTEE
WHEREAS, Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/Tennessee,
Inc. (“Grantee”), currently holds a cable television franchise (“Franchise”) granted by the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”); and
WHEREAS, Grantee owns, operates and maintains a cable television system in the City
(“System”) pursuant to the terms of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2014, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and Time Warner
Cable Inc. ("TWC") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2014, Comcast and Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter")
entered into the Comcast/Charter Transactions Agreement (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which
the Grantee, through a restructuring under Comcast's ownership, will become Comcast of
Minnesota, LLC ("New Grantee") and immediately thereafter will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Midwest Cable, Inc. ("Midwest Cable") (the "Transaction"); and
WHEREAS, on or about June 17, 2014 the City received from Grantee, FCC Form 394 -
Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable
Television Franchise (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, Federal law and the terms of the Franchise require that the City take action
to consider the Application within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of receipt, or on or
before October 15, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 22, 2014 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to extend
the Application review period for sixty (60) days until December 15, 2014 to allow the City time
to review the additional information concerning the qualifications of Midwest Cable provided to
the City on September 30, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 30, 2014 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a
further extension of the Application review period for thirty (30) days until January 15, 2015 to
allow the City to review certain service agreements related to the Transaction as well as certain
SEC financial filings to be made available for review on October 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a
further extension of the Application review period through and including February 13, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on or about January 14, 2015 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a
further extension of the Application review period to accommodate continuing discussions and
agenda deadlines through and including February 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Section 28-1-7(2) of Ordinance No. 2309-06 requires the City’s advance
written consent prior to the Grantee’s transfer of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed Transaction Grantee has requested consent from
the City to the proposed transfer of the Franchise; and
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Transaction, and based on information
provided by Grantee and Midwest Cable, the City has elected to approve the proposed
Transaction subject to certain conditions as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Front Range Consulting (“FRC”) to conduct a review of
the franchise fees and PEG fees paid by Grantee to the City for the period beginning January 1,
2011 through December 31, 2013 ("Review Period”); and
WHEREAS, FRC submitted its findings and recommendations in its November 2014
Report (“Report”) to the City and thereafter provided Grantee with a copy of the Report; and
WHEREAS, as part of this proceeding the City and Grantee desire to conclude and settle
all disputes arising out of or relating to Grantee’s payment of franchise fees and PEG fees during
the Review Period.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows:
1. All of the above recitals are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
2. The Franchise is in full force and effect and Grantee is the lawful holder of the
Franchise.
3. New Grantee will be the lawful holder of the Franchise after completion of the
Transaction.
4. The City hereby consents and approves of the proposed Transaction subject to the
below conditions.
a. New Grantee agreeing to assume any and all liabilities, known and
unknown, under the Franchise.
b. Within twenty (20) days of the date of adoption of this Resolution, New
Grantee shall execute and file with the City the Acceptance and Agreement
attached hereto to verify New Grantee’s compliance with the terms and conditions
of this Resolution; and
c. Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable
(also to be known as GreatLand Connections Inc.) shall execute and provide the
City with the Corporate Parent Guaranty attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated by reference.
d. Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable
(also to be known as GreatLand Connections Inc.) shall execute and provide the
City with a written guaranty in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B specifying
that subscriber rates and charges in the City will not increase as a result of the
costs of the proposed Transaction.
e. New Grantee will participate in quarterly meetings with members of the
City or the City’s designees for the first two (2) years following the close of the
Transaction to verify that subscriber issues and concerns are being addressed by
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
New Grantee or any other entity that may have interaction with subscribers within
the City. If issues are not being addressed, New Grantee agrees to meet with the
City, as directed, to explain steps being undertaken to address subscriber concerns
and New Grantee will provide regular and timely updates to the City to provide
verification of corrective actions being undertaken to address unresolved issues.
f. New Grantee will maintain an “escalated complaint program” to escalate
unresolved cable television complaints from subscribers. One or more
specifically identified employee(s) of New Grantee shall be available to City via
email for reporting issues. These specifically identified employee(s) of New
Grantee will have the ability to escalate service issues to a senior officer of New
Grantee or New Grantee’s parent company when necessary. New Grantee will
follow-up with City by email or by phone with a summary of the results of the
complaint(s).
g. New Grantee will commit to comply with Section 28-1-19 of the
Franchise and submit quarterly reports to verify compliance with applicable FCC
customer service standards regarding answering calls, wait times, hold times and
related call answering statistics.
h. No later than twelve months from the date this Resolution was adopted
and upon ninety (90) days’ advance written notice from the City, New Grantee
will make available to the City one (1) high definition PEG channel (“HD PEG
channel”) on the cable system. The City represents that it has or will have
available by that date sufficient local, non-character generated programming in
HD format so as to provide content of value to viewers and not have a blank
channel.
i. The content of the HD PEG channel is up to the City. The City
may simulcast one (1) of the existing PEG channels in HD and SD
formats, or it may choose to provide subscribers an HD channel that is
programmed differently than the existing SD PEG channels (for example,
the City could create a “best of” HD PEG channel that carries a
combination of HD PEG programming from the existing SD channels).
ii. New Grantee shall deliver the high definition signal to subscribers
so that it is viewable without degradation, provided that it is not required
to deliver a PEG Channel at a resolution higher than the highest resolution
used in connection with the delivery of local broadcast signals to the
public. New Grantee may implement HD carriage of the PEG channel in
any manner (including selection of compression, utilization of IP, and
other processing characteristics) that produces a signal as accessible,
functional, useable and of a quality comparable (meaning
indistinguishable to the viewer) to broadcast HD channels carried on the
cable system.
iii. The HD PEG channel will be assigned a number near the other high
definition local broadcast stations if such channel positions are not already
taken, or if that is not possible, near high definition news/public affairs
programming channels if such channel positions are not already taken, or if
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
not possible, as reasonably close as available channel numbering will
allow.
iv. City acknowledges that HD programming may require the viewer
to have special viewer equipment (such as an HDTV and an HD-capable
digital device/receiver), but any subscriber who can view an HD signal
delivered via the cable system at a receiver shall also be able to view the
HD PEG channels at that receiver, without additional charges or
equipment. By agreeing to make PEG available in HD format, New
Grantee is not agreeing it may be required to provide free HD equipment
to customers including complimentary municipal and educational accounts
and universal service accounts, nor modify its equipment or pricing
policies in any manner. City acknowledges that not every customer may
be able to view HD PEG programming (for example, because they don’t
have an HDTV in their home or have chosen not to take an HD capable
receiving device from New Grantee or other equipment provider) or on
every TV in the home.
v. No sooner than twenty-four (24) months from the activation of the
first HD PEG channel, upon ninety (90) days’ written notice from the
City, New Grantee shall convert a then existing SD channel to HD format
such that the SD version of that PEG channel will be eliminated at the
time of conversion to HD.
i. New Grantee will make available to the City the ability to place PEG
channel programming information on the interactive channel guide by putting the
City in contact with the electronic programing guide vendor (“EPG provider”)
that provides the guide service. New Grantee will be responsible for providing
the designations and instructions necessary to ensure the channels will appear on
the programming guide throughout the jurisdictions that are part of the City and
the costs of any necessary headend equipment associated therewith. The City
shall be responsible for providing programming information to the EPG provider
and for any costs charged by the EPG provider, unless New Grantee is required to
pay for PEG EPG costs per applicable law or national commitments.
j. Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of adoption of this
Resolution, submit payment to the City in the amount of Eight Thousand and
No/100 Dollars ($8,000.00) (“Payment”). The City and Grantee agree that the
Payment represents full and complete settlement of all claims during the Review
Period. It is further agreed that the Payment shall not constitute “gross revenue”
in whole or in part as that term is defined in the Franchise.
k. New Grantee shall maintain and provide (as Grantee currently provides),
free transport services in accordance with Section 28-1-15 of the Franchise.
l. New Grantee shall maintain and provide (as Grantee currently provides),
the commitment of free cable TV service to schools and City buildings listed in
Exhibit A of the Franchise as an expense for the New Grantee.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
m. New Grantee’s compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 4.a
through 4.l of this Resolution shall be handled under the Franchise. New Grantee
shall be subject to available enforcement procedures and remedies as if these
obligations were set forth in the Franchise.
n. Comcast shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of adoption of this
Resolution, fully reimburse City for all of the City’s reasonable costs and
expenses in connection with the City’s review of the proposed Transaction,
including without limitation, all costs incurred by the City for experts and
attorneys retained by the City to assist in the review as well as notice and
publication costs (“Reimbursement”).
i. The Reimbursement shall not be deemed to be “Franchise
Fees” within the meaning of Section 622 of the Cable Act (47
U.S.C. §542), nor shall the Reimbursement be deemed to be (i)
“payments in kind” or any involuntary payments chargeable
against the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by New Grantee
pursuant to the Franchise.
ii. The Reimbursement shall be considered a requirement or
charge incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the Franchise.
iii. It is understood that the language in this paragraph 4.n has
been agreed to solely for the purpose of this Resolution and this
Reimbursement, and does not prejudice any party from taking a
different position regarding the franchise fee issues in the future.
5. In the event the proposed Transaction contemplated by the foregoing resolution is
not completed, for any reason, the City’s consent shall not be effective. If any of the
conditions set forth herein are not met, the City’s consent to the proposed Transaction
shall be null and void and of no effect.
This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date
of its passage, approval, and adoption.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT
Comcast of Minnesota, LLC hereby accepts this Resolution No.
(“Resolution”) and any attachment incorporated by reference in the Resolution and agrees to be
bound by the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the terms and conditions of the
Franchise referenced within the Resolution.
Dated this day of , 2015.
COMCAST OF MINNESOTA, LLC
By:
Its:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
___ day of ___________, 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
EXHIBIT A
CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 201
(this “Agreement”), by and among GreatLand Connections Inc. (f/k/a Midwest Cable, Inc.), a
Delaware corporation (the “Guarantor”), the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Franchising
Authority”), and , a
(“Company”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on or about February 3, 2006 the Franchising Authority adopted Ordinance
No. 2309-06 granting a Cable Television Franchise which is now held by Comcast of
Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/ Mississippi/ Tennessee, Inc. (the “Franchise”), pursuant
to which the Franchising Authority has granted the rights to own, operate, and maintain a cable
television system (“System”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Comcast/Charter Transaction Agreement dated April 25,
2014 by and between Charter Communication, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Comcast
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, (“Agreement”), the Franchise will be transferred to the
Company and the Guarantor will acquire control of the Company as an indirect subsidiary of
Guarantor as a result of Comcast Corporation’s contribution and spin off of certain cable
television systems pursuant to the Agreement (“Change in Control”); and
WHEREAS, Company and Comcast Corporation have requested the consent to the
Change of Control in accordance with the requirements of Section 28-1-7(2) of Ordinance No.
2309-06; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. , dated
, 201 , Franchising Authority conditioned its consent to the Change of Control on the
issuance by Guarantor of a corporate parent guaranty guaranteeing certain obligations of
Company under the Franchise.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, in
consideration of the approval of the Change of Control, Guarantor hereby unconditionally and
irrevocably agrees to provide all the financial resources necessary for the observance, fulfillment
and performance of the obligations of the Company under the Franchise and also to be legally
liable for performance of said obligations in case of default by the Company.
This Agreement, unless terminated, substituted, or canceled, as provided herein, shall
remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising
Authority, this Agreement may be terminated, substituted, or canceled upon thirty (30) days prior
written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company. Such termination
shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior to the effective date of
such termination or cancellation.
GREATLAND CONNECTIONS INC.
(F/K/A MIDWEST CABLE, INC.)
By:
Its:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
___ day of ___________, 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer Approval
EXHIBIT B
GUARANTY REGARDING RATES
GreatLand Connections, Inc., upon closing of the proposed Transaction (as defined in the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Resolution No. ), guarantees that rates and
charges for cable service offered by , the Grantee in the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, will not increase as a result of the cost of the proposed transaction.
GreatLand Connections, Inc. agrees that any failure to adhere to this guaranty shall be
deemed a violation of the Franchise.
EXECUTED as of .
GREATLAND CONNECTIONS, INC.,
By:
Its:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
___ day of ___________, 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside
Storage
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Denying Application of Zoning
Text Amendments.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the zoning ordinance amendments?
SUMMARY: Mr. James T. Smith (Applicant) is an attorney representing Mr. Martin Bell. Mr.
Bell owns property at 2011 Florida Ave in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. Applicant’s
reason for requesting the amendments is to make the illegal outdoor storage use currently being
conducted by Mr. Bell’s tenant a legal use that can be continued. If approved, the amendment
would allow Outdoor Storage to be conducted as a principal use by Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) in all the industrial parks throughout the city in a similar manner as outdoor storage is
being conducted in the general industrial areas.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of all proposed ordinance amendments citing:
1) The importance of the 1989 and 1991 studies of the Edgewood Ave Industrial Park, noting
that the studies resulted in the rezoning of the area, including Mr. Bell’s property into the
existing IP district.
2) The extended period of time that it has been zoned Industrial Park.
3) Concerns about unintended consequences the proposed amendments could create for other
areas in the city.
4) No apparent compelling reason to change the ordinance which seems to be working
effectively.
As detailed in the staff report, outdoor storage has a number of associated nuisance and aesthetic
issues, the comprehensive plan and zoning code goals and policies do not support allowing
expanded outdoor storage uses in the Industrial Park district, and the City already allows outdoor
storage in suitable areas of the City and with reasonable limitations. The proposed ordinance
changes would impact ten existing industrial park areas (65 existing properties) in the City that
are located near residential and/or evolving industrial and commercial properties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Denying Amendments
Draft Ordinance
Letter from Applicant
Table – Comparison of IP and IG Zoning Districts
Photos of Industrial Zoned Properties
Zoning Map
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Three amendments are proposed. The
amendments were presented to the Planning Commission on January 7, 2015. The Commission
tabled consideration for further discussion, and asked staff to meet with the applicant to review
the proposed ordinance and recommend changes that may make the proposed amendment more
acceptable if the city chooses to adopt them.
While the applicant is proposing three amendments, he is offering two options for one of the
proposed amendments. The proposed amendments are summarized below. Item number two is
the amendment with two options.
1. Amend Section 36-4 to delete the word “land” and replace with the word “parcel”.
During the enforcement action described below, Mr. Bell argued that the use of the word
“land” gave him the right to conduct an accessory use on any property he owns in the City,
not just the property on which the principal use is being conducted. As noted below, the City
Attorney, City Council, and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) disagreed with this
interpretation.
2. Amend Section 36-243(c)(6) to add language specifically stating that accessory uses, such as
outdoor storage, are not permitted as an accessory use to the Parking Lot use. The Applicant
gives two options to consider to accomplish this.
a. All accessory uses are prohibited.
b. Only outdoor storage is prohibited as an accessory use, other accessory uses may be
permitted as allowed elsewhere in the code.
3. Amend Section 36-243(d) to allow outdoor storage as a conditional use. This would allow a
property owner to apply for a conditional use permit to conduct outdoor storage as a principal
land use (the only land use occurring on the property). The conditions are as follows:
a. Properties must not be within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential.
b. Storage areas shall be enclosed with a fence at least six feet in height.
c. Where properties abut a railroad track, fencing shall not be required on the side of the
storage yard which faces, or is adjacent to, the railroad track, unless the average grade of
the railroad track is less than six feet higher than the average grade of the storage yard.
d. Storage areas shall be a minimum of 10 feet from a side and rear lot line, 50 feet from a
front lot line, and 25 feet from a side lot line adjacent to a street.
e. All yards shall be planted with turf grass or similar vegetation, and shall be landscaped as
required by this chapter.
f. Storage areas shall be separated by curb and landscaping from parking and circulation
areas that are required by the off-street parking section of this chapter.
g. Inoperative vehicles or equipment or other items typically stored in a junkyard or salvage
yard shall not be stored on land on which storage is permitted with conditions under this
section.
h. All areas used for outdoor storage shall be paved, and have a six inch minimum concrete
curb around the perimeter.
i. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 am to 9:00 pm.
j. All stormwater requirements of the city and watershed shall be met.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
BACKGROUND:
Application: The first two proposed amendments are intended by the applicant to “clarify”
existing code. These issues were the subject of discussions and appeals relating to the Tim’s
Tree Service use that were heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA), the City Council, and
reviewed by the City Attorney. Each of them concluded that the existing language is clear;
therefore no further analysis is provided, and the Planning Commission and staff recommends
denial of the first two proposed amendments.
Additionally, the City Attorney has advised staff that contrary to Applicant’s statement in his
application, the adoption of one or more of these amendments would not make the current illegal
Tim’s Tree Service use a legal nonconforming use. The City Attorney recommends denial of
these proposed amendments.
The third amendment would allow outdoor storage as a principal use in the Industrial Park
district by conditional use permit. The potential broad impacts of that proposed amendment are
discussed below.
Staff suggested revisions to the third option, allowing outdoor storage as a conditional use in the
Industrial Park zoning district. The revisions include adhering to zoning regulations such as
setbacks, landscaping, stormwater management, screening, and any other regulations that may be
required specific to a location. The revisions were accepted by the applicant and Mr. Bell, and
have been incorporated into the amendment to allow Outdoor Storage by CUP as Set forth above
and in the attached ordinance. Despite the revisions, staff and the Planning Commission are still
recommending denial of the proposed amendment for reasons outlined below.
Zoning Studies: There were two different zoning studies conducted in 1989 and 1991. The
studies focused on the Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area, which is the same industrial area
where Mr. Bell would like to operate outdoor storage as a principal use and there is currently an
enforcement action pending.
Both studies included a task force made up of property owners from the industrial area and from
the adjacent residential area. The 1991 task force utilized an official from the Minnesota Office
of Dispute Resolution to mediate the discussions. Many of the issues discussed pertained to the
impacts on the adjacent residential properties resulting from uses conducted outside a building.
The result of the studies was to rezone the Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area from IG to
Industrial Park, which it is currently zoned. The decision was made to rezone the area to
Industrial Park instead of General Industrial because the impacts of uses permitted in the General
Industrial Park are too great for adjacent residential areas. This decision was mutually agreed
upon by the industrial and residential property owners making up the task force.
Enforcement Action: One of the properties owned by Mr. Bell is the subject of a zoning
enforcement action. Mr. Bell recently leased a vacant parcel (2211 Florida Ave) to Tim’s Tree
Service to store equipment and materials outside. Since this property is otherwise vacant, the
outdoor storage constitutes a principal use. Outdoor storage is not permitted as a principal use in
the Industrial Park zoning district. Therefore, Mr. Bell and the owner of the tree service were
directed to cease the activity.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
Mr. Bell appealed the determination to the BOZA, where the BOZA upheld staff’s determination
that the use is a principal use, and therefore, illegal. Mr. Bell then appealed BOZA’s decision to
the City Council and the Council confirmed the BOZA decision.
Shortly after the Council decision, staff again notified Mr. Bell and Tim’s Tree Service that the
use is not permitted, and must cease. Mr. Bell responded to the notice with this request to amend
the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor storage as a conditional use in the IP zoning district.
Allowing outdoor storage as a conditional use would allow Tim’s Tree Service to apply for a
CUP, and remain if the CUP is approved.
Timeline of Events:
1989 – At the request of residents and industrial property owners, the City facilitated a
discussion on the industrial uses occurring in the Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area.
No changes were made to the City Code as a result of these discussions.
1991 – Again at the request of residents and industrial property owners, and as a result of
numerous complaints, the City initiated a second task force to study the
Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area. This time the task force utilized and official
from the State of Minnesota to facilitate the discussions. Changes to the code were
recommended by the task force, which included rezoning the area from a heavy
industrial area, which included considerable outdoor storage as an allowed use, to the
existing industrial park district which dramaticall y limits the amount of outdoor storage.
2009 – Mr. was Bell informed by two different letters that he is storing vehicles on the property
in violation of city code, and that he expanded the parking lot with a gravel surface, also
in violation of city code. The vehicles were removed, and the violation closed.
2013 – Mr. Bell was informed that the fence he installed was in violation of city code (did not
obtain permit), and that he installed signs for U-Haul parking, and that storing vehicles
would be in violation of City Code.
2014:
June - Mr. Bell leased the property to Tim’s Tree Service. Letters were sent to both
Tim’s Tree Service and Mr. Bell notifying them of the violation.
July – The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) heard Mr. Bell’s appeal of staff’s
determination that the outdoor storage (Tim’s Tree Service) was being conducted
in violation of city code. BOZA upheld staff’s determination.
August – Mr. Bell received letter notifying him that the activities performed by Tim’s
Tree Service was resulting in erosion and property damage to the neighboring
property to the east, and required repairs.
October – The City Council heard Mr. Bell’s appeal of the BOZA decision, and the City
Council upheld the BOZA decision.
November – Letter sent to Mr. Bell informing him that since the appeal process is
complete, he now has to conform to City Code and cease the outdoor storage use.
December – Second letter sent regarding the erosion matter causing damage to the
adjacent property.
December – Mr. Bell submitted an application to amend the City Code to make outdoor
storage a use permitted by CUP in the Industrial Park district.
January 7th – The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on the proposed
City Code amendments, tabled consideration so staff could meet with the
applicant to suggest revisions to the ordinance.
January 21st – The Planning Commission reviewed the revised ordinance, and
recommended the City Council deny all proposed ordinances.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
ANALYSIS: This analysis reviews the request in the context of how it would impact all
properties in the city zoned Industrial Park along with the impacts it would have on neighboring
residential and industrial properties.
Principal/Accessory Use Definitions:
Uses that are allowed to occur on a property are listed in the zoning district regulations. The list
of uses are divided into two types, principal uses and accessory uses.
Principal use is defined as the main use and chief purpose of land or structures, as
distinguished from a secondary or accessory use.
Accessory use is defined as a use or a structure subordinate to the principal use or structure
on the same land and customarily incidental thereto. In the case of an accessory structure,
both the building footprint and building height of an accessory building are smaller than the
principal building.
The principal use of an industrial property is typically a building containing a manufacturing,
office, or warehouse use. Each of these principal uses may have a small component of its
operation that requires something to be stored outside. Outdoor storage is allowed as an
accessory use as long as it is a small component of the operation. Small component means it
cannot occupy an area on the lot that is more than 25% of the floor area of the building on the lot
in an Industrial Park district.
Outdoor Storage:
Outdoor Storage is defined in the zoning ordinance as follows:
The receiving, keeping and shipping of goods and materials outside of an enclosed building
where outdoor activity includes only the unloading, loading, and keeping of materials. This
use may include storage yards for contractors, equipment, lumber, landscaping materials,
construction materials and shipping materials. Storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles
or other materials typically associated with a junkyard, salvage yard or auto reduction plant
are excluded.
Potential Impacts of Proposed Amendments:
(1) Adverse impacts typically associated with outdoor storage include:
• Noise coming from running heavy equipment, materials being moved around or
dropped, and back-up alarms. In particular noise early morning or late at night can be a
nuisance.
• Odors from the machinery, typically diesel. The smell of diesel equipment running one
hundred feet from a residential property may impact a person’s ability to enjoy their
backyard or cause people to keep their windows closed in the summer.
• Visual impacts include the sight of materials and equipment. These items are not always
kept in an orderly manner. Weeds will frequently grow in seldom used areas of the
storage lot.
• The consequences of these impacts need to be considered not only when adjacent to
residential, but also when adjacent to other properties within the Industrial Park zoning
district where properties and uses are intended to be more professional and of higher
aesthetic standards than the General Industrial zoning district.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
(2) There is also the potential opportunity cost of land used for outdoor storage rather than a
more desirable industrial use.
(3) Outdoor storage as a principal use may lack the monitoring, security, and upkeep that is
typical of an industrial use with employees on-site.
(4) The City utilizes the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance to mitigate these impacts
on neighboring properties.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan contains a land use chapter that explains the goals and strategies that
guides the city when considering land use applications, redevelopment, and zoning amendments.
Each goal has several corresponding strategies intended to aid the city in meeting the listed goal.
The following are some of the industrial and business park goals and strategies pertinent to the
proposed outdoor storage zoning amendment:
Goal: Protect and enhance the viability of the City’s designated industrial areas for
industrial uses.
Strategy: Support new industrial land uses that are able to minimize nuisances to surrounding
non-industrial land uses.
Strategy: Enhance industrial areas’ compatibility with nearby residential neighborhoods.
While the Comprehensive Plan supports and encourages the viability of industrial properties, it
also calls for the industrial areas to evolve in such a way that the adjacent properties are not
impacted by the noise, aesthetics, odors, dust and other potential nuisances associated with
industrial uses such as outdoor storage.
Zoning Ordinance:
The city recognizes that industrial uses impact neighboring properties to varying degrees. The
city also acknowledges that when considering impacts to neighboring properties we need to
consider not just adjacent residential properties, but also impacts on adjacent industrial properties
within the same industrial area. To successfully mitigate the impacts of industrial uses on
adjacent properties, the city utilizes performance standards, zoning districts, and the zoning map.
Performance Standards: Performance standards include screening (landscaping, berming, &
fencing), limitations on hours of operation, setbacks, paved surfaces for parking and storage
areas, and other measures that may be specific to the use.
Zoning Districts: The city utilizes three industrial zoning districts designed to keep uses with
similar purposes and impacts together, General Industrial (IG), Industrial Park (IP), and Business
Park (BP). The districts progress from IG that allows most industrial uses and has minimal
performance standards to mitigate impacts, all the way to BP which allows some industrial uses,
but requires the uses, including storage, to be located inside a building. BP also has strict
performance standards to mitigate impacts. On this scale, IP is located between IG and BP as a
district that allows most industrial uses, but also requires substantial performance standards to
mitigate impacts.
To this end, the purpose/intent section of each of the districts is below:
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
General Industrial:
City Code Section 36-244(a) Purpose/intent. The purpose of the I-G general industrial district is
to provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in such activities as
manufacturing, processing, assembly, storage and warehousing.
The purpose/intent of the IG district reinforces the premises that this district is intended to house
industrial uses that may have higher nuisance potential. The purpose/intent statement doesn’t
indicate a priority to mitigate these impacts, although as expected, the code does establish
minimum standards that need to be met.
Industrial Park:
City Code Section 36-243(a) Purpose/intent. The purpose of the I-P industrial park district is to
provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in such activities as
assembly, storage, warehousing and light manufacturing which are not typically associated with
high levels of noise, soot, odors and other potential nuisance impacts upon adjoining properties
in an industrial park setting.
The IP district expands on the IG purpose/intent statement by similarly allowing industrial uses.
Although it limits manufacturing to “light” manufacturing.
The purpose/intent also includes a statement clarifying that the industrial uses allowed are those
that are not typically associated with a high level of nuisance impacts on adjoining properties.
Finally, the purpose/intent statement of the IP district calls the IP district out as an “industrial
park setting”. An industrial park setting is one where the uses are primarily conducted inside the
building, the buildings are of a higher aesthetic standard, and the properties are landscaped to
provide a higher aesthetic experience.
The aerial photo below demonstrates the difference between an Industrial Park quality of
development and an IG quality development.
Properties #1 and #2 represent good examples of an industrial park setting where the use is
occurring inside the building, the customer/employee parking is separate from the truck dock
area, there is no outdoor storage, and the site is very well landscaped.
Property #3 is a good example of a General Industrial property that has a substantial amount of
outdoor storage, very little building area, and very little landscaping.
All three of these properties are located in the Florida Ave/Edgewood Ave industrial park area.
Mr. Bell’s property is located adjacent to the property identified as #3. The Florida
Ave/Edgewood Ave industrial park area used to be zoned as General Industrial, but was rezoned
to Industrial Park. Property #3 is the result of the IG zoning, while building #1 was constructed
in 2003, and is the result of the IP zoning.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
As indicated by the current zoning, this area is intended to evolve into an industrial park setting,
and has begun taking those steps with the redevelopment of property #1. Outdoor storage as a
principal use should not be allowed to locate next to a building such as the ones on properties #1
and #2 below in an “industrial park setting”.
Legally non-conforming uses:
Comments were made at the October 6, 2014 City Council meeting and at the January 7, 2015
Planning Commission meeting that the requested outdoor storage as a principal use is consistent
with other existing uses occurring in the area, including directly adjacent to Mr. Bell’s property
(#3 above). The properties in this industrial park that have significant amounts of storage are
legally non-conforming to the city code. “Legally non-conforming” means the use was legal at
one time, but the code changed resulting in the use no longer meeting code. The code changes
typically as a result of on-going nuisance complaints and/or a public process deciding that an
area needs to be developed in a different manner, which was the case for this area. As legally
non-conforming uses they are allowed to continue as is, but cannot be intensified or increased in
any manner.
When deciding the future uses of the industrial park, the city should not be comparing the
proposed use to a legally non-conforming use. The proposal should be compared to legal uses,
the comprehensive plan, and to the purpose/intent of the zoning district. The proposal should be
compared to the industrial park style buildings that exist on properties #1 and #2. Looking at the
aerial above, the contrast between the general industrial type outdoor storage use of property #1
compared to the industrial park type development of properties #2 and #3 is striking and clear.
Outdoor storage as a principal use is not appropriate in an industrial park setting.
It is anticipated that eventually the legally non-conforming use on property #3 and others in the
area will redevelop into an industrial park style use similar to properties #1 and #2. If the
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
proposed amendment is adopted, then the legally non-conforming outdoor storage uses can
become legal by applying for the CUP. The direction of making the legally non-conforming uses
legal again is contrary to the stated purpose/intent of the Industrial Park district, the
comprehensive plan, the zoning map, the two studies, and the past and current nuisance
complaints.
Legal uses:
The table attached to this report shows all the uses permitted in both districts. The difference
between the two is highlighted, and it clearly shows that uses typically associated with noise,
odors and other impacts such as visual blight are kept to the General Industrial district. These
uses include autobody repair, composting and auto repair. To this end, outdoor storage is
allowed as a principal use in the General Industrial district, but only as an accessory use in the
Industrial Park district. Meaning, a parcel in the General Industrial district can be used entirely
as outdoor storage, but it cannot occupy an area on the lot that is more than 25% of the floor area
of the building on the lot in an Industrial Park district.
Zoning Map: Segregating uses into zoning districts is one strategy to mitigate nuisance impacts
on adjacent properties. A second strategy is to locate the zoning districts in areas of the city
where the uses permitted within the district will have minimal impacts on neighboring properties.
The properties zoned IG, which contain the uses with the most potential nuisance impacts on
neighboring properties, such as outdoor storage, are located in areas far away from residential
properties, and/or that are separated from residential properties by a substantial barrier such as a
large wetland basin or an elevated road or railroad. This is illustrated in the aerial photographs
attached to this report. The photographs show the location of the IG and IP properties and their
proximity to residential.
Allowing higher impact uses such as outdoor storage in the Industrial Park district would negate
the purpose and effectiveness of the zoning map. It would create nuisance situations for the
neighboring properties, especially the nearby residential uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on January 7, 2015. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The
commission tabled consideration to the January 21, 2015 meeting where they recommended
denial of all proposed amendments. A copy of the minutes of both meetings is attached.
NEXT STEPS: A Resolution denying all of the proposed ordinance amendments is attached for
your consideration. Planning Commission and staff recommend that the Resolution be adopted.
If adopted, then no additional steps would be required.
If the City Council desires to proceed with either of the first two amendments, then City Council
should direct staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration at the March 2, 2015 City Council
meeting.
A draft of an ordinance proposing to allow outdoor storage as a conditional use permit is
attached should the City Council desire to approve it. A second reading would be scheduled for
March 2, 2015.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION FOR
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that the
following Findings and Decision are adopted denying the Application of James T. Smith on behalf
of Martin Bell for zoning text amendments.
BACKGROUND
• On or about December 3, 2014, Attorney James T. Smith (“Applicant”) on behalf of his
client Martin Bell filed an Application with the City requesting certain zoning text
amendments. Mr. Bell is the owner of certain property in the City which is zoned
Industrial Park.
• Applicant has proposed text amendments labeled (i) and (ii) which are submitted for the
purported purpose of making the existing illegal use of Mr. Bell’s property located at 2011
Florida Avenue for outside storage a legal non-confirming use.
• Applicant has also proposed a text amendment (iii) which would generally make outdoor
storage an allowed principal use of property by a conditional use permit in the Industrial
Park District.
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 7, 2015.
• On January 21, 2015, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion
recommending denial of all proposed text amendments.
FINDINGS AND DECISION
1. Proposed Text Amendments (i) and (ii) are denied for the following reasons:
a. The existing language in City Code Section 36-4 is clear. There is no reason to
modify the terminology.
b. The existing language in the zoning ordinance relating to accessory uses and the
application of the term to parking lots is clear. There is no need to modify the
language.
c. The use of Mr. Bell’s property at 2211 Florida Avenue by his tenant Tim’s Tree
Service is an illegal use as determined by City staff, which interpretation has been
upheld by BOZA and the City Council. The use cannot be transformed into a legal
non-conforming use by any amendment to the zoning ordinance since it was illegal
at the time it was established.
d. The Tim’s Tree Service use of Mr. Bell’s property can only become a legal use by a
general text amendment allowing outdoor storage as an allowed use in the
Industrial Park District.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
2. Proposed Text Amendment (iii) allowing outdoor storage as a principal use in the
Industrial Park District by conditional use permit is denied for the following
reasons:
a. Allowing outdoor storage as a principal use in the Industrial Park Zoning District is
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the district as an “industrial park setting”
in which uses are primarily conducted inside and the buildings and landscaping are
of a higher aesthetic standard.
b. The area in which the property owned by Mr. Bell is located was the subject of two
different zoning studies in 1989 and 1991. The area is adjacent to residential
properties. Based upon these studies, the area was rezoned from General Industrial
to Industrial Park to lessen the potential impact of heavier industrial uses allowed in
the General Industrial District, such as outside storage as a principal use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for zoning text
amendments is hereby denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-243(c)(6)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 14-29-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-243(d) is hereby amended as
follows. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
industrial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242 and all of the general
conditions provided in section 36-33 regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific
conditions imposed in this subsection.
***
(6) Outdoor Storage. The conditions are as follows:
a. Properties must not be within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential.
b. Storage areas shall be enclosed with a fence at least six feet in height.
c. Where properties abut a railroad track, fencing shall not be required on the side of
the storage yard which faces, or is adjacent to, the railroad track, unless the
average grade of the railroad track is less than six feet higher than the average
grade of the storage yard.
d. Storage areas shall be a minimum of 10 feet from a side and rear lot line, 50 feet
from a front lot line, and 25 feet from a side lot line adjacent to a street.
e. All yards shall be planted with turf grass or similar vegetation, and shall be
landscaped as required by this chapter.
f. Storage areas shall be separated by curb and landscaping from parking and
circulation areas that are required by the off-street parking section of this chapter.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
g. Inoperative vehicles or equipment or other items typically stored in a junkyard or
salvage yard shall not be stored on land on which storage is permitted with
conditions under this section.
h. All areas used for outdoor storage shall be paved, and have a six inch minimum
concrete curb around the perimeter.
i. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 am to 9:00 pm.
j. All stormwater requirements of the city and watershed shall be met.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 14-29-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing January 7, 2015
First Reading February 17, 2015
Second Reading March 2, 2015
Date of Publication March 12, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect March 27, 2015
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council _________, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
PROPOSED ORIGINAL ZONING AMENDMENT
AND APPLICANT COMMENTS
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
TABLE – COMPARISON OF IP AND IG ZONING DISTRICTS
Comparison of Permitted Uses in the
Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts
P=Permitted
PC=Permitted with Conditions
CUP=Permitted by Conditional Use Permit
PUD=Planned Unit Development
A=Accessory Use
Use
Industrial
Park
General
Industrial
Park and open space. P P
Police and fire stations. P P
Post offices. P P
Business/trade school/college P P
Parcel delivery services P P
Recycling operations P P
Showrooms P P
Warehouse and storage P P
Transit stations P P
Studios P P
Freight terminals - P
Group day care/nursery schools PC PC
Public service structures PC PC
Utility substations PC PC
Communication towers PC PC
Manufacturing/processing PC P
Parking lots as an exclusive principal land use PC PC
Parking ramps as principal structure PC PC
High impact sexually-oriented business PC PC
Medical, optical and dental laboratories PC PC
Catering PC P
Brewery PC P
Animal handling - PC
Autobody/painting - PC
Composting operations - PC
Motor vehicle service and repair - PC
Heliport CUP CUP
Office CUP PC
More than one principal building CUP CUP
Group Daycare/Nursery Schools CUP CUP
Communication towers more than 110 feet in
height but not to exceed 199 feet in height CUP CUP
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
Anaerobic digester - CUP
Retail other than accessory PUD -
Service PUD -
Office, provided that it occupies less than 50
percent of the gross floor area of the
development. A A
Parking lots A A
Parking ramps A A
Railroad spurs A A
Outdoor storage A PC
Repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and
equipment incidental to the conduct of the
principal use A A
Food service A A
Retail sales limited to a maximum of 15
percent of the gross floor area of the
development A A
Large item retail sales limited to a maximum
of 15% of the gross floor area of the
development A A
Motor fuel station - A
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
Photos of Industrial Zoned Properties
Vacant properties in the IP district:
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff surveyed the properties located in industrial
parks to determine how many properties are located outside the proposed 100 foot setback and
how many of those are vacant. The following pages illustrate all industrial properties located in
the city with a 100 foot setback overlayed.
Staff discovered that of the 64 properties zoned Industrial Park, 29 of them are more than 100
feet away from a residential property. Only six of the 29 are vacant. The six are indicated
below.
¯0 0.10.05 Miles
Legend
Residential
100 Ft Residential Buffer
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
LouisianaAveH ig h w a y 7
100Feet
R2
R4
IP
IG
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 0Inside 100 Feet: 2 Total Industrial Park Properties: 2
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 20
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
Industrial Park
CedarLakeAveHampshireAve1 0 0
F
e e tIP IP
IG
R4
R2
R2
R2
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 12Inside 100 Feet: 12Total Industrial Park Properties: 24
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 21
¯0 0.250.125 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
Highway100ParkPlaceBlvd100 Feet
IP
IP
IG
R4
R1 RC
R1
RC
R2
IP PropertiesOutsdie 100 Feet: 3Inside 100 Feet: 1 Total Industrial Park Properties: 4
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 22
¯0 0.150.075 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial
100 Feet
Excelsior BlvdMeadowbrookRoadR1
R4IG
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 0Inside 100 Feet: 0Total Indsutrial Park Properties: 0
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 23
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
A
v
e
O xfordS t100 Feet
IG
IG
R3
RCMethodist Hospital
R4
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 0Inside 100 Feet: 0Total Industrial Park Properties: 0
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 24
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
Highway 7
LouisianaAve100FeetIP
IG
IG
RC
R3
R2
R2
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 2Inside 100 Feet: 1Total Industrial Park Properties: 3
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 25
¯0 0.150.075 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
H ighw ay7W
oodale
Ave
100 Feet
IP
IG
IG
IP
IP
R2
R3 R4
R4
RC
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 9Inside 100 Feet: 4 Total Industrial Park Properties: 13
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 26
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
100 FeetHighway10036 St
IG
IP
R4
RC
RC
RC
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 2Inside 100 Feet: 1Total Industrial Park Properties: 3
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 27
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
H ig h wa y7BeltLine Blvd1 0 0 F e e tIG
IP IP
IP
RC
R4
R3
RC
R3
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 1Inside 100 Feet: 3Total Industrial Park Properties: 4
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 28
¯0 0.20.1 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial and Industrial Park
H ig h w ay73 1 s t S t
1 0 0
F
e e tIP
IG R4
R2
RC
RC
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 0Inside 100 Feet: 1Total Industrial Park Properties: 1
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 29
¯0 0.150.075 Miles
Legend
100 Ft Residential Buffer
Residential
General Industrial
Industrial Park
Industrial Park
28th St LouisianaAve100 Feet
IP
R1
RC
RC
R2
R2
IP PropertiesOutside 100 Feet: 0Inside 100 Feet: 10Total Industrial Park Properties: 10
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 30
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 31
EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 7, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Nicole Mardell, Gary Morrison, Sean
Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
3. Public Hearings
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Outside storage in IP District
Applicant: James T. Smith
Case No.: 14-29-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
stated that the applicant James T. Smith is an attorney representing Martin Bell.
Mr. Bell owns property on Florida Ave. in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district.
Three amendments to the zoning ordinance are being requested. Mr. Morrison
explained that the purpose of the request is to clarify the intent of the zoning
ordinance and to allow Outdoor Storage as a land use permitted by Conditional
Use Permit in the Industrial Park zoning district.
Mr. Morrison stated that the first part of the request relates to the definition
section of the zoning ordinance. The two other proposed amendments relate to
the Industrial Park zoning district regulations.
Mr. Morrison said the applicant proposes to delete the word “land” and replace it
with “parcel” in the definition for Accessory Use or Structure. Mr. Morrison
provided background on an enforcement action related to the Florida Ave.
properties where Mr. Bell argued that the use of the word “land” gave him the
right to conduct an accessory use on any property he owns in the City, not just the
property on which the principal use is being conducted. Mr. Morrison said that
the City Attorney, City Council, and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
disagreed with this interpretation.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the request to add language stating that accessory uses,
such as outdoor storage, are not permitted as an accessory use to the Parking Lot
use.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 32
Official Minutes
Planning Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Morrison reviewed the proposed amendment to allow outdoor storage as a
conditional use.
Mr. Morrison presented a table contrasting permitted uses in the Industrial Park
and General Industrial Districts. He spoke about the distinction between
accessory use and principal use of outdoor storage in those districts. He
discussed the locations of those districts in the city.
Mr. Morrison spoke about zoning studies conducted in 1989 and 1991 which
focused on the Edgewood/Florida Ave. industrial area. The result of the studies
was to rezone the Edgewood/Florida Ave. industrial area from IG to Industrial
Park because the negative impacts of uses permitted in the General Industrial Park
are too great for adjacent residential areas.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends denial of the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Peilen asked why the request was being made since the applicant
had already been through the BOZA and City Council process.
Mr. Morrison responded that the proposed amendments are a different approach
by the applicant. The matter which went to BOZA and City Council was an
appeal of staff’s determination/interpretation of the City code. BOZA and the
City Council upheld the staff determination and staff initiated a code compliance
action on the property again. He added that one way to come into compliance is
to change the code, which the applicant is pursuing in this application.
Commissioner Kramer asked about uses in the area, including storage use of the
bus company.
Mr. Morrison discussed principal use and accessory use in the Industrial Park
district. He noted that there isn’t a principal land use on Mr. Bell’s property
being used by Tim’s Tree Service; it is only being used for outdoor storage.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she isn’t comfortable making a city-wide
change at this time. She said she needs a lot more information before she would
be ready to make a recommendation. She added that staff, BOZA and City
Council have already weighed in on the use.
Commissioner Peilen said she agreed with Commissioner Johnston-Madison
about needing much more information to make a city-wide recommendation.
James Smith, applicant, representing Martin Bell, said he watched the video of the
City Council discussion regarding Mr. Bell’s appeal. Mr. Smith said the Council
vote upheld BOZA’s decision. He said numerous Council members expressed
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 33
Official Minutes
Planning Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 3
their frustration with the situation and wanted to know how it could be fixed. Mr.
Smith said he felt the Council encouraged what he and Mr. Bell are proposing.
He said the first two amendments are short-term fixes that clarify the code to
erase some of the murkiness that created the unique circumstances. Mr. Smith
said the third option acknowledges that there are business reasons for a use that
occurs. It can be supported from a city perspective with conditions.
Mr. Smith said shortly after the Council meeting he met with staff members. He
had hoped to be able to work together on a text amendment.
Mr. Morrison responded to Commissioner Johnston-Madison’s question about
office space and accessory use in this case. He said that accessory use has to be
on the same property as the principal use. He added that the only accessory use
city code allows to be conducted on a different parcel is customer and employee
parking.
Martin Bell, applicant, 2240 Florida Ave. S., spoke about access to the property.
He spoke about building an office addition when he purchased the property.
Property across the street was laid out as parking. The business outgrew the
property and the warehouse in the back is still used as storage. The front offices
have been vacant. Tim’s Tree Service rented offices there and rented part of the
lot across the street.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Peilen suggested a study session for further study and discussion.
Commissioner Kramer said he would like to either table the item for further
discussion or make a recommendation and move the discussion forward to the
City Council.
Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with tabling the item, with the
Commission making it clear to staff what information it needs, including how the
amendment language would affect other districts throughout the city.
Chair Carper said it was important for staff to continue working with the applicant
to see what can be done without making massive, unintended changes throughout
the city.
Commissioner Kramer said he would like to see an open discussion between the
applicant and staff about all options available.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 34
Official Minutes
Planning Commission
January 7, 2015
Page 4
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to table the request to January
21, 2015. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 5-1 (Person opposed).
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage
Page 35
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 21, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Richard Person
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice-Chair Johnston-Madison opened the meeting.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 2015
Commissioner Carper made a motion to approve the minutes of January 7, 2015.
Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0-1 (Robertson abstained).
3. Old Business
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Outside storage in the IP District
Applicant: James T. Smith
Case No.: 14-29-ZA
(tabled on January 7, 2015)
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
reviewed the three proposed amendments which were presented to the
Commission on January 7, 2015. The Commission tabled consideration for
further discussion, and requested staff meet with the applicant to review the
proposed ordinance and recommend changes.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff met with James Smith, an attorney representing
Martin Bell. Staff confirmed its position on the first two proposed amendments
which is that the City Council and City Attorney already stated the ordinance is
clear and does not need to be amended.
Mr. Morrison said at the meeting with Mr. Smith staff suggested revisions to the
third option, allowing outdoor storage as a conditional use in the Industrial Park
zoning district. Mr. Morrison stated the importance of reviewing the applicant’s
request in the context of how it would impact all properties zoned IP along with
the impacts it would have on neighboring properties. He reviewed the
conditions, with recent revisions.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 36
Official Minutes
Planning Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Morrison mentioned the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan that
guide the city when considering zoning amendments. He spoke about the goals
and strategies for industrial uses.
Mr. Morrison discussed how the city uses performance standards, zoning districts
and the zoning map to successfully mitigate the impacts of industrial uses on
adjacent properties. He reviewed the purpose and intent of each of the three
industrial zoning districts. Mr. Morrison presented and discussed a table which
compared permitted uses in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts.
He stated the definitions of principal and accessory uses.
Mr. Morrison addressed comments regarding other existing uses occurring in the
area. He noted proposals should be compared to legal uses, the Comprehensive
Plan, and to the purpose/intent of the zoning district. A proposed use should not
be compared to a legally non-conforming use.
Mr. Morrison spoke about locations of IG and IP properties in the city and their
proximity to residential.
Mr. Morrison closed by saying staff recommends denial of the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Outdoor Storage and the
Accessory Use definition.
Commissioner Peilen asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed
amendments.
Mr. Morrison responded that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed
amendments and has recommended denial.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked how often and what kind of requests the city
receives for outdoor storage.
Mr. Morrison responded one or two requests may be received a year. He said the
request typically comes from landscapers.
James Smith, applicant, attorney representing Martin Bell, provided a summary of
the request. He spoke about Mr. Bell’s properties being linked historically due to
parking purposes.
Mr. Smith thanked staff for meeting with him recently to discuss concerns. He
said the proposed conditions are designed to limit the nuisance factor and
distinguishes it from the General Industrial district. He stated the proposal is a
rational approach to the overall problem. A property is being used which fosters
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 37
Official Minutes
Planning Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 3
employment. When the lease was entered into with Tim’s Tree Service there
was reliance on past use. He said the proposal is an attempt to remedy what the
City Council described as an unintended consequence of the code. He added that
the Council encouraged the process and the possibility of conditional use permit.
Commissioner Carper commented on the importance of the zoning studies
conducted in 1989 and 1991, and the extended period of time the
Edgewood/Florida Ave. has been zoned as Industrial Park. He spoke about the
unintended consequences the proposed amendments could create for other areas
of the city. He said he recommends denial of the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Robertson said he believes the current zoning is effective and said
he does not see a good reason for the proposed amendments. He said he
recommends denial.
Commissioner Tatalovich said he is concerned about consequences of changing
the code across the city. He thanked staff for the additional information.
Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Section 36-4 pertaining to the Accessory use
or structure definition, to Section 36-243(c)(6) pertaining to Parking lots as an
exclusive principal land use in the Industrial Park Zoning District, and to Section
36-243(d) to include outdoor storage as a Conditional Use. Commissioner
Robertson seconded them motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, said the item is scheduled for City Council
consideration on February 2, 2015. Mr. Smith, applicant, requested that the item
be scheduled for City Council consideration on February 17, 2015.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
Mr. Walther briefly discussed a Methodist Hospital expansion request which is
scheduled for a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting on
February 4, 2015.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Submitted by,
Nancy Sells
Adm. Secretary
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Consideration of Application for Zoning Text Amendments Relating to Outside Storage Page 38
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution, and authorize summary for
publication, for text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan related to Planned Unit
Developments.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the proposed amendments
removing specific density limits for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Districts in the “High-
Density Residential”, “Commercial”, “Office” and “Mixed-Use” land use categories of the
Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: The City recently revised the PUD section of the Zoning Code, including the
approval process, as well as other procedural, text and policy revisions. The changes allow the
City Council more discretion and flexibility to approve PUDs. One of the policy changes
included removing limitations on modifying district regulations. Similar amendments are needed
in the Comprehensive Plan to accomplish the flexibility intended in the recent zoning ordinance
amendments. Therefore, staff proposes text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with the recently approved new PUD ordinance. The changes remove specific density
limitations associated with the PUD process in the “Land Use Plan” and “Plan Implementation”
chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. These changes apply to the RH – High Density Residential,
C – Commercial, O – Office and MX – Mixed Use land use categories of the Comprehensive
Plan. Detail of the revisions is attached to this report.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments February 4,
2015. No comments were received for the public hearing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: - Draft Resolution & Summary Resolution
(including proposed text amendments)
- For further context:
(The complete Comprehensive Plan can be found at:
http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive-plan.html)
- Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
- Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
Pertaining to Planned Unit Developments in the
Land Use Plan and Plan Implementation Chapters
WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on
December 21, 2009 and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on February 4, 2015, based on
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 14-32-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 14-32-CP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that
the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council,
is hereby amended as indicated in the attached Exhibits A and B.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
Exhibit A
Excerpt of Land Use Plan Chapter
***
Where We Are Headed
This section of the Land Use chapter establishes the City’s official land use categories and the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which is intended to guide current and future land use
planning and development through the year 2030. The land use plan categories are fully defined
below. The 2030 map is the official land use designation map for the City. The land use
designations are intended to shape the character, type and density of future development
according to sound planning principles. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land
use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the land use guiding for each parcel.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories
There are 12 land use categories that guide the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
which are described below. In general, the categories reflect a movement towards greater mixing
of uses.
I. RL - Low Density Residential
The Low Density Residential category is intended primarily for single-family detached housing.
This category allows net residential densities from three (3) to seven (7) units per acre.
II. RM - Medium Density Residential
The Medium Density Residential category allows net residential densities from six (6) to 30 units
per acre. This category allows for a variety of housing types including single family detached,
duplexes, townhomes, and small two- and three-story apartment buildings.
III. RH - High Density Residential
The High Density Residential land use category is intended for higher density, compact urban
residential development, including high-rise apartment buildings. This category allows for a net
residential density range of 20 to 75 50 units per acre;. however zoning will allow only up to 50
units per acre except higher rResidential densities greater than 50 units per acre may be achieved
by utilizing the PUD process and addressing the City’s Livable Communities Principles and
other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as including structured parking, affordable housing,
or incorporating sustainable site and building design elements. Under a PUD, 75 units per acre
may be developed if within 1,000 feet of a park. The appropriate building height will vary by
development and depend upon the characteristics of the development and its surroundings.
Pedestrian-scale, three- to four-story buildings will be appropriate in some areas, while six- to
eight-story buildings and even taller high-rises will be acceptable in others. In addition to
residential development, a small proportion of supportive retail and service is also appropriate.
Retail, service and office beyond those supporting the residential development would only be
permitted as part of a mixed-use PUD.
IV. C - Commercial
The Commercial land use category is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of
commercial uses, such as retail, service, entertainment, and office. Commercial uses can range
from small neighborhood convenience nodes, to community retail areas along major roadways,
to large shopping centers, to auto-related commercial uses along freeways. Residential uses are
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
also appropriate as part of a mixed-use commercial development, with a net residential density
range of 20 to 50 units per acre allowed. Residential densities greater than 50 units per acre may
be achieved by utilizing the PUD process and addressing the City’s Livable Communities
Principles and other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as including structured parking,
affordable housing, or incorporating sustainable site and building design elements.
V. MX – Mixed-Use
In the Mixed Use land use category, a mixing of uses including commercial is required for every
development parcel. The goal of this category is to create pedestrian-scale mixed-use buildings,
typically with a portion of retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and
residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed use buildings typically have approximately 75
to 85 percent of the building for residential use and 20 to 25 percent for commercial or office
uses. Taller buildings may be appropriate in some areas and net residential densities between 20
and 75 50 units per acre are allowed. Residential densities greater than 50 units per acre may be
achieved by utilizing the PUD process and addressing the City’s Livable Communities Principles
and other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as including structured parking, affordable
housing, or incorporating sustainable site and building design elements. The MX designation is
intended to facilitate an integrated town center atmosphere in Park Commons and a diversity of
uses in certain other areas of the community.
VI. I - Industrial
The Industrial land use category covers all industrial uses from manufacturing, assembly,
processing, warehousing, storage, laboratory, distribution, and related offices. Industrial areas
consist of both lighter industrial uses, which tend to have higher appearance standards and fewer
impacts on surrounding properties, and general industrial uses which are typically set off from
other uses. Current industrial uses tend to be concentrated around the City’s railroads, where
industrial uses first developed in the community. Future industrial uses should primarily be
located in close proximity to either a railroad line or regional roadway system with limited traffic
circulation through residential and pedestrian oriented areas.
VII. O - Office
The Office land use category is primarily intended for employment centers of fairly intensive
office and mixed use development with high floor area ratios (FARs) and building heights.
Business, professional, administrative, scientific, technical, research, and development services
are typical uses appropriate for the Office land use category. The Office category also allows
other limited uses such as hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail and restaurants when
part of a larger development.
VII. CIV-Civic
The Civic land use category is intended for public buildings and uses as well as similar private
uses, such as schools, government buildings, places of assembly, community centers, libraries,
and non-profit institutions.
***
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
Pertaining to Planned Unit Developments in the
Land Use Plan and Plan Implementation Chapters
The resolution approves amendments which will allow increased density in certain land use
categories through a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Adopted by the City Council February 17, 2015
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 26, 2015
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 4, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard
Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Alex Boyce, Nancy Sells
C. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments - Planned Unit Developments
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 14-32-CP
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that recently the City
revised the planned unit development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code. Similar
amendments are now needed in the Comprehensive Plan to fully accomplish the policies
intended with that PUD ordinance. Mr. Walther stated that the Comprehensive Plan text
amendments specifically remove density limitations associated with the PUD process in
the Land Use Plan and Plan Implementation chapters.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison remarked that the table in Plan Implementation, which
is proposed to be removed, has been useful. She asked if there are any plans to replace
the table to reflect the new PUD policies.
Mr. Walther said it’s a little odd to be providing zoning code information in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said in general the Comprehensive Plan sets policy goals and
the Zoning Code controls more specifically. Mr. Walther said staff could look into
placing a table elsewhere in the plan that would summarize the Comprehensive Plan
categories which would lay out density restrictions.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. No one was present wishing to speak and the
Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments relating to Planned Unit Developments.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Submitted by,
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation - Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Ferguson Waterworks as the lowest cost
responsible life cycle bidder and to authorize the execution of a contract with the vendor in the
amount of $3,423,102.70 for Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Council in agreement with the recommended vendor to
replace City’s water meters and move to a fixed network system to collect readings?
SUMMARY: A total of five (5) bids were received for the project, with one bid being removed
from consideration as it was not complete. The total bid was broken down into Bid Package “A”
and Bid Package “B”, with the former for furnishing the meter products and the latter for
installation, maintenance and warranty. By having two bid packages, the City can save the cost
of sales tax since the meters are exempt if the City purchases them instead of the vendor. An
alphabetical summary of the results are shown below:
Based on a 25 year life cycle cost, that Ferguson can read meters both as a fixed and drive by
network and submitting to collect 98.5% of reads via the fixed network per the City’s bid
requirements, staff is recommending awarding the contract to Ferguson. Ferguson’s staff will
also be installing the equipment versus contracting it out. The City Attorney was consulted on
awarding the contract to the lowest 25 year life cycle bid, and deems it is appropriate.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Utility rates have been analyzed and rate
adjustments have been factored into the Utility Funds to finance this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Bid Award Recommendation for City’s Consultant TKDA
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
VENDOR
BID PACKAGE
"A"
BID PACKAGE
"B"TOTAL
25 YEAR LIFE
CYCLE COST
Badger Meter 1,921,925.05$ 1,288,262.25$ 3,210,187.30$ 6,157,817.74$
DSG 2,260,109.89 1,305,622.12 3,565,732.01 7,245,401.35
Ferguson Waterworks 2,337,992.65 1,085,110.05 3,423,102.70 5,999,113.00
HD Supply*2,680,991.99 No Bid N/A N/A
Mueller Systems 3,214,537.20 1,009,490.40 4,224,027.60 6,363,513.46
* Removed from consideration since no Bid Package "B" was submitted.
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Title: Bid Tabulation - Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001Page 2
City Council Meeting of February 17, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Title: Bid Tabulation - Water Meter Replacement – Project #50150001Page 3