Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/01/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JANUARY 12, 2015 5:30 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 5:30 p.m. City Manager Performance Evaluation 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 26, 2015 2. 6:35 p.m. 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities 3. 7:35 p.m. Off Sale Liquor Licensing 4. 8:05 p.m. Update - City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project 5. 8:35 p.m. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update 6. 8:50 p.m. Review Boards and Commissions Applications 7. 9:05 p.m. Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee Application Review 9:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:40 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 8. Southwest LRT Update 9. Street Smart SLP-Crosswalk Safety Campaign 10. November 2014 Monthly Financial Report 11. Polystyrene Packaging Update Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: City Council Closed Executive Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City Manager Performance Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Lynae Steinhagen, Consultant, will review the information from the annual performance review for Tom Harmening, City Manager. Council will discuss the information from the evaluation process and set general direction for work for 2015. Lynae will be participating via video conference. Please note the Ms. Steinhagen is the same consultant that facilitated the evaluation last year. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Consultant Lynae Steinhagen will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive Session on the results of the City Manager’s performance evaluation. The information will be sent to Council under separate cover. The discussion will proceed as follows: • The summary of the information from the evaluation will be presented by Ms. Steinhagen. Council will provide comments or suggestions. • City Manager Tom Harmening will join the Council and participate in the conversation, reviewing work from 2014 and setting direction for 2015. • Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next regular Council meeting. In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law states: “All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.” FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 26, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 26, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 26, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning January 26, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 26, 2015 Study Session, January 26, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Small Business Program – Community Development (30 minutes) Review current City programs and resources aimed at assisting local small businesses and proposed future initiatives. 3. Southwest LRT – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff will have an update on LRCI agreements and costs, and provide an overview of the Joint Development planning process at the Beltline Station area. 4. Hockey Association – Outdoor Refrigerated Ice – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes) Hockey Association members and staff will present a financing plan for the Capital and operating expenses to construct an Outdoor refrigerated ice rink. 5. Development Proposal for Properties at 13th Lane and Texas Avenue – Community Development (15 minutes) A multi-family development is being proposed on two MnDOT parcels near Wayzata Blvd. The developer will attend and present the development concept for the Council’s review and initial feedback. 6. Boards & Commissions Appointment Process – Administrative Services (45 minutes) City Council has requested time to review and take a comprehensive look at the Boards & Commissions appointment process. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m. Reports 7. 2014 December Financial Report 8. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2014) 9. Zoning Text Amendment - Outside Storage in IP District 10. McGarvey Property Update 11. Health in the Park Update Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities RECOMMENDED ACTION: Attached is a list of legislative issues for Council’s annual review and discussion with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative Ryan Winkler, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Greene, and Metropolitan Council representative Jim Brimeyer. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff has attached a draft of the 2015 legislative issues for the Council’s discussion with the city’s legislators and representatives. Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation to pursue? SUMMARY: Based on the Council’s special study session discussion on January 5, Staff has prepared the attached list of legislative issues for the discussion with our legislators and representatives. As has been the case in previous years, as the 2015 legislative session progresses, additional issues may come to light. It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory issues. Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal, and Nauen. Unless staff hears otherwise, we will continue to use these services in 2015. Note that Vic Moore will be attending the study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities City of St. Louis Park 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Transportation Issues and Priorities A. Southwest LRT Issue: The Southwest LRT project is of major importance to the City of St. Louis Park. The past year has been one of significant progress with Municipal Consent plans approved by all five cities along the corridor. This means that the alignment is set and advanced engineering can begin. The project has a cost estimate of $1.65 billion. Assuming the base plan moves forward, the project needs $165 million from the State, which is 10% of the $1.65 billion project. Thus far the state has committed $44 million towards the project. As a part of the Municipal Consent process, St. Louis Park (and other cities) worked with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) of the Met Council to identify important infrastructure projects that were not included in the base project. While the City did not agree that these important infrastructure projects, also known as Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCI’s), should not be included in the overall project, it approved Municipal Consent in July based on being assured numerous times by the SPO/Met Council that these improvements could be eligible for funding from the “contingency” budget for the overall project. For the Central Corridor project, these types of improvements were funded in this same manner. Just recently (November 2014) the SPO/Met Council informed the cities that the Federal Transit Administration will no longer allow contingency funds for the project to be used for these identified needs. Analysis: The recently announced position of the FTA is of major concern for St. Louis Park and the other suburban communities along the corridor. For St Louis Park alone, the estimated cost of the LRCIs is $40 million for basic infrastructure improvements to address expected significant congestion and safety issues in and around two of the three proposed stations. Examples of these projects include grade separating Beltline Blvd (near Beltline Station) and Xenwood Ave (near Wooddale Station) from the current freight rail line, regional trail and future LRT line. Additional sidewalk connections, bike facility improvements, landscaping and way finding may need to be added as well. Position: The City continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project and asks for legislative support for the following: • Approval by the legislature of the remaining required State funding commitment. • Financial assistance from the State for the implementation of the Locally Requested Capital Improvements. B. Move Minnesota Campaign support Issue: Members of the Health in the Park Connect the Park! work group have asked that the City Council adopt a resolution of support for the Move Minnesota Campaign. The Move MN Campaign is committed to addressing Minnesota's urgent transportation needs - roads, bridges, transit, bike and pedestrian connections. The campaign consists of a growing, diverse coalition dedicated to starting to erase Minnesota's transportation deficit and creating new funding that will enable the state to properly maintain and improve transportation assets that expand access and opportunity for all, and create living wage jobs Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Analysis: The Move MN campaign in seeking legislative funding for a comprehensive, multi- modal, statewide transportation package in the 2015 legislative session. This proposal (if passed by the legislature) could help provide some of the resources to assist with implementation of our Connect the Park plan. Position: The City supports the goals of the Move MN Campaign and requests legislative support as well. C. Street Improvement District Issue: For many cities, existing funding mechanisms for street maintenance and reconstruction are inadequate. Analysis: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options available to cities do not meet the growing funding needs. Special assessments can be onerous to property owners and are difficult to implement for some cities. Property tax dollars are generally not dedicated and are sometimes diverted to more pressing needs such as public safety, water quality and cost participation in state and county highway projects. Municipal state aid (MSA) is limited to cities over 5,000 population—147 of 853 cities in Minnesota--and cannot be applied to more than 20% of a MSA city’s lane miles. Existing MSA funding is not keeping up with needs on the MSA system. Alternatives to Special Assessments as financing for infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. Historically, the Legislature has given cities the authority to maintain and operate utility infrastructure (i.e. waterworks, sanitary sewers, streetlights, and storm sewers). The storm water utility authority, established in 1983, set the precedent as enabling legislation for cities to charge a use fee on a utility bill for city infrastructure that benefits everyone in a city. Also, special service districts are allowed for streetscape and sidewalks. Similar to the storm sewer and special service district authority, a Street Improvement District would use technical, well-founded measurements and could equitably distribute the costs of street maintenance and reconstruction to property owners. This authority would allow cities to collect fees from property owners within a district to fund municipal street maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and facility upgrades. If enacted, this legislation would provide cities with an additional tool to build and maintain city streets. Position: The City supports legislative authorization that would allow cities to create Street Improvement Districts. Community Development Issues and Priorities A. TIF District Statutory Modifications Issue: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) remains the most viable tool for local economic development and community reinvestment efforts. TIF is a method local governments use to pay for the costs of qualifying improvements necessary to create new investment, redevelopment, or publicly-assisted housing. The financing of the qualifying improvements is paid from the increased property taxes generated from the new development, redevelopment, or housing that would not occur “but for” such assistance. There are steps that the State could take that would enhance the effectiveness of TIF, leverage additional private investment and create more jobs and tax base in communities. The current types of TIF districts lack flexibility and do not adequately address the varied and unique redevelopment situations found in urban communities. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Current TIF law requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus preventing new investment from occurring. Additionally current TIF law does not allow TIF districts to extend beyond municipal boundaries; this artificially inhibits redevelopment along municipal lines, and prevents the sharing of public improvement costs in areas where there is opportunity for broader public benefit. Position: The City supports greater flexibility and the inclusion of additional uses within current TIF districts. In particular, the City supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District statute requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be substandard. The City also supports the elimination of the 5-year rule for districts that take longer to develop. The City further supports the establishment of new forms of TIF districts to encourage and facilitate redevelopment in urban areas particularly in proximity to LRT and transit stations. Such new TIF district types include: Compact Development TIF Districts, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) TIF Districts, and multi-jurisdictional TIF districts. B. DEED Transit Improvement Districts Issue: Additional financing tools are needed besides TIF to spur economic development along transit lines and corridors. The State allowed DEED to create Transit Improvement Areas (and each of the St. Louis Park stations were qualified) but these TIAs lack any funding or authority. Position: The City supports funding the TIA program and granting TIAs authority to fund various transit-related public improvements and redevelopment projects (including tax increment financing, tax abatement, and special service districts) to address the needs of transit-oriented development. C. Special Service District Statutory Authority Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101 to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can financially participate within Special Service Districts. This is challenging for funding additional services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established 6 Special Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. There will also be a need to provide infrastructure improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas. Position: The City supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial participants within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts around transit and LRT station areas. D. Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor wide housing strategy for the SWLRT Corridor for providing a full range of housing options specifically within ½ mile of the station areas. The fundamental issue with respect to the traditional approaches to infill/redevelopment and mixed-income housing production/preservation is an absence of funds. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Position: The City supports the creation of a TOD Affordable Housing Fund that would provide a financial resource that would be utilized to support the preservation and creation of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor. Public Safety Issues and Priorities A. License Plate Readers Issue: Current law classifies information collected by Automated License Plate Readers as public data and subject to public data requests. An administrative ruling sought by Minneapolis temporarily provided relief from this position; however, legislation permanently classifying this data as private would resolve an issue which will otherwise complicate and compromise the ability of police agencies to collect and retain data for a reasonable time (6 months). There are several examples of serious crimes being solved due to the ability of police agencies to collect and retain this information as private data for up to 6 months before destroying. In these cases public data classification or a 30 day destruction timeline would have prevented suspects from being identified and cases being solved. Position: The City requests support of a permanent resolution to this issue from the legislature. This would provide an effective tool for police and protect the public’s safety and privacy and, in particular, our more vulnerable residents who may become targets if this information becomes public data. B. Body and Squad Car Dash Cameras Issue: The SLP Police Department is exploring the acquisition and deployment of body cameras, beginning with trial periods using several vendors we have identified through research. In addition to the logistical and operational issues (and related policies) involved, it is clear that data collection and retention related to body cameras has resulted in agencies being overwhelmed by public data requests from a variety of sources. In Washington State for example, one large software developer makes repeated and recurring blanket requests from law enforcement agencies which simply overwhelms their resources in terms of a timely response. Camera data must be reviewed by a qualified staff person to edit and redact private data in response to a public data request, just as we edit and redact private data from our written reports in responding to public data requests currently. An agency the size of St. Louis Park might generate several hundred hours per week of camera data which would be uploaded and stored. A blanket request would require a staff member to watch and redact/edit this data to prevent the release of private data in responding to this request. In addition, a complicated case might require our staff to consult with our city attorney for guidance (as we do currently for written reports), which would add additional time to the review process. Some agencies in Washington State are now opting to pay the fines for non-compliance because of the difficulty of the task. Position: The City is requesting legislative support for a resolution to this issue that will enable us to comply with the law but does not overwhelm our resources. This resolution might involve limiting retention in some categories, limiting what are now open ended repeating/recurring requests, or permitting compensation for staff time required to comply with requests. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities C. New Arson Section 609.5634 Real or personal property arson resulting in bodily harm Issue: The standard arson provisions in Minnesota Statutes 609.561-5631 do not provide for criminal penalties in a circumstance where someone suffers bodily harm as a result of a fire. If the fire should result in a death, common law felony murder codified in MN Stat. §609.19 Subd. 2 or manslaughter Minnesota Statute 609.20-205 is well settled. However, injury short of death is not covered in the standard arson provisions. The current wildfire arson and negligent fire statutes do provide for specific penalties where someone suffers some type of bodily harm. Position: The City supports legislation that adds a new arson section where bodily harm resulting from real or personal property arson can be punished as a crime. D. Creation of Community EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) Issue: The original statute was created to only include paramedics. This limits the ability for communities such as St Louis Park to enact service models which improve service levels and prevent readmissions and generate revenue. This bill which is a priority initiative of the Minnesota Professional Firefighters (MPFF) and is supported by our Local 993 is designed to correct the omission of EMT in the earlier legislation. Analysis: The St Louis Park Fire Department in collaboration with Park Nicollet along with Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Hopkins fire departments has been actively engaged in a Pilot Program designed to significantly reduce readmissions and improve the resiliency of our communities. The tenants of this program are integral to those of a Community EMT program. The City and Park Nicollet have seen significant benefits in reduced readmissions, improved brand of the two organizations, and improved sense of security by the customers attributing to improved resiliency. This legislation makes it easier to continue the development of the Post Discharge Program and consider other ways to add value. Position: Support the legislation being authored by the Minnesota Professional Firefighters, and a number of legislators. Financial Issues and Priorities A. Fiscal Disparities Issue: The City has been a net contributor to the fiscal disparities program for some time. Given extensive redevelopment and stronger commercial/industrial property values than most other metro area communities, the City’s net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool has increased substantially. Analysis: Below are some statistics related to St. Louis Park, which denotes the increase in the City’s net tax capacity contribution over the years: Pay 2010 - 1,231,482 Net Contribution Pay 2011 - 2,775,483 Net Contribution Pay 2012 - 3,220,881 Net Contribution Pay 2013 - 2,940,678 Net Contribution Pay 2014 - 3,670,487 Net Contribution Pay 2015 - 3,879,478 Net Contribution Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Based on these increases, the City of St. Louis Park has experienced a 215% increase from Pay 2010 to Pay 2015. The City feels that it is being penalized for undertaking aggressive redevelopment efforts which necessitates the use of TIF. When using TIF for commercial, industrial or office projects a portion of the new tax capacity generated from the project is added into the fiscal disparity pool, which in effect lengthens the number of years the TIF district needs to exist to provide the necessary assistance to make the project viable. This results in a longer period of time before the City is able to experience the benefits of the new tax capacity created by the project. Position: While the Fiscal Disparity program has many good points, the City asks its legislators to continue to be aware of the financial implications it represents to St. Louis Park. The City’s tax rate is higher due to reduced Net Tax Capacity, creating additional burdens on local property tax payers to pay for local services. The City supports changes to this program that are prospective in nature and that recognize aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities undertake using tax increment financing. This would include not requiring new tax capacity created by projects utilizing TIF to be placed in the Fiscal Disparities pool while the district is in place. B. Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities, counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website). Position: The City continues to support the elimination of this requirement. In addition to saving cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs, the notices would have the potential to reach a much greater audience than they currently do in St. Louis Park, where the local newspaper only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications. C. 299A.465 Continued health insurance coverage for peace officer or firefighter disabled in the line of duty Issue: Cities are required to continue payment of health insurance for peace officer or firefighter disabled in the line of duty. The determination must be made by the executive director of the Public Employees Retirement Association or by the executive director of the Minnesota State Retirement System. Subd. 1(d) - The employer is responsible for the continued payment of the employer's contribution for coverage of the officer or firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's dependents. Coverage must continue for the officer or firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's dependents until the officer or firefighter reaches or, if deceased, would have reached the age of 65. However, coverage for dependents does not have to be continued after the person is no longer a dependent. Subd. 4. Public employer reimbursement. A public employer subject to this section may annually apply by August 1 for the preceding fiscal year to the commissioner of public safety for reimbursement to help defray a portion of its costs of complying with this section. The commissioner shall provide an equal pro rata share to the public employer out of the public safety officer's benefit account based on the availability of funds for each eligible officer, firefighter, and qualifying dependents. Individual shares must not exceed the actual costs of providing coverage under this section by a public employer. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Position: The City does not have issues with this type of program. The questions come with the interpretation of “in the line of duty” and also with funding of this unfunded mandate. • The City of St. Louis Park has 5 former public safety employees that qualify for continued payment of health insurance. In some cases, there were questions on what was the intent with this language as it relates to the term “injury in the line of duty” and should a slip and fall in the office be considered in the line of duty? • The City has only been partially reimbursed for this cost of this mandate, and requests that this program be fully funded by the State of MN. D. Levy Limits Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed on cities over 2,500 in population for three years (2009 -2011). There was a one-time levy limit applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable 2014, only. This was in effect for all counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500 and over. Exempt from the limits were all cities with a population less than 2,500, all towns and all special taxing districts Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative effect on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility. Position: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to extend the levy limit or other proposed restrictions for local government budgets. Based on our legislative policies which strongly support local budgetary decision making, and as such St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off Sale Liquor Licensing RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with background information regarding off sale liquor licensing. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any other information regarding off sale liquor licensing? Does Council want staff to take any other action regarding this matter? SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and locations of new off-sale liquor stores within St. Louis Park. At the Council meeting of November 17, 2014, Council approved an off sale intoxicating liquor license for Target Corporation making a total of 16 off sale intoxicating liquor licenses within St. Louis Park. As a result of that action, the consensus of the Council was to discuss this matter at a future study session. Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the city. Staff has researched and attached the surrounding communities’ policies and restrictions for issuance of off-sale liquor licenses. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Survey Results Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Map of All Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening , City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Off Sale Liquor Licensing DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Off Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off sale liquor licenses. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off sale licenses includes 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off sale licenses issued since 2000. YEAR Off-sale Intox (liquor stores) Off-sale 3.2 malt liquor (grocery stores) Off-sale Brewery (growlers) TOTAL Off-sale Licenses 2014 16 3 2 21 2013 15 3 2 20 2012 14 3 2 19 2011 14 4 2 20 2010 13 3 1 17 2009 12 3 1 15 2008 11 3 1 14 2007 13 3 16 2006 10 2 12 2005 10 2 12 2004 9 3 12 2003 9 4 13 2002 9 4 13 2001 9 4 13 2000 7 4 11 Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations for off sale licenses. Limiting the number of liquor licensed establishments: Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Off Sale Liquor Licensing Minimum Distances: • City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship. • Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states that a liquor store lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. • In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. • If the Council wanted to pursue additional distance restrictions, it should be clearly defined as to how it would be measured (ex. property line to property line). Survey Results: Staff previously presented research to council regarding off sale liquor limitations in surrounding communities. At the time, Council did not come to consensus on the concept of limiting the number or location of off-sale liquor establishments in the city. A recent survey collected liquor information from suburbs with similarities and proximity to St. Louis Park. Of the suburbs surveyed, Hopkins, New Hope, Minnetonka, Blaine, Burnsville, and Brooklyn Park have limitations on the number of off-sale intoxicating licenses. Public Safety Impact: The police department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety. CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental entity or organization operating the school or church Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft. Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments. St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50% Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service. Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 polulation. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to report sales. Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000 Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the "Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in 2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of Westburn first addition. Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually. Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations. Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations. Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches. 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Off Sale Liquor licensing Page 4 CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Off Sale Liquor licensing Page 5 Excelsior Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lake R d Liquor Establishments Off Sale Brewery - Growlers (2) Off Sale 3.2 - Grocery Stores (3) Off Sale Intox - Liquor Stores (16) January 2015 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Off Sale Liquor licensing Page 6 Excelsior Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lake R d On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments Liquor Establishments On Sale Intox (26) On Sale Club (2) On Sale 3.2 & Wine (15) On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) On Sale 3.2 (1) On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) Off Sale 3.2 (3) Off Sale Intox (16) January 2015 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Off Sale Liquor licensing Page 7 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update - City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is to update Council on the planning, costs, and projected timing for the City Hall second and third floor remodeling. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council still in support of proceeding with the proposed plan to remodel second and third floors of City Hall? SUMMARY: City Hall carpeting, workstations, furnishings, and wall finishes on the second and third floors have successfully provided fifteen to twenty years of use and now require replacement. During planning for the first floor and entrance renovation project several years ago, CIP funds were designated for this project to occur during 2014 – 2015. An employee committee made up of representatives from Administration, Engineering, Community Development, and Inspections Departments has been working with U+B Architects since April 2014 on developing a concept plan and reviewing materials for the second and third floor. The process included evaluating ways to correct some operational, security, and customer service deficiencies. While less extensive compared to the major reconfiguration of the first floor, the resulting remodeling project proposed includes relocation of counter and walls to allow for improved customer service and employee interaction. At the September 22, 2014 Council meeting staff presented council with preliminary plans and a cost estimate for the second and third floor remodel and establish a budget. Comments included the need to freshen up of the Council Chambers and staff was encouraged to donate the current office furnishings to area non-profits vs. being recycled now. Funds to renovate third floor Council chambers have been allocated for 2017. Discussion on the extent and desired outcome of the Council Chambers project will begin later in 2015 or early 2016. The City will serve as general contractor for the second and third floor projects with a planned start during February 2015 and extending for about eight months. Each department will be a separate construction phase, minimizing disruption to customer service during the project. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding source for this proposed project is the Capital Replacement Fund (CRF). Based on the proposed remodeling scope at this time, staff is proceeding with a total project budget of $1.235 million for both floors. 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: Discussion Attached Floor Plans Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Update - City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project DISCUSSION Construction Management – Facilities Maintenance will serve as the general contractor. The largest component of the project will be office partitions and furnishings. These will be provided under State contract pricing by Hendrickson Office Products. They are nearing completion of the office layouts a draft of which is shown on the attached drawings. Carpet, wall coverings, electrical, doors, and mechanical systems will be done by specialty contractors hired directly by the city. None of the components are expected to exceed the amount necessary for a competitive bidding. The new third floor walls and counter will be by a commercial framing/drywall contractor. City staff will perform some of the demolition, minor wall construction, and ceramic tiling of the lobby’s. Tiling can be effectively done by staff during evenings and weekends to limit disruption of the lobby during business hours. Scheduling – First phase of the project will begin in February when the Engineering Department staff will temporarily move into the Municipal Service Center (MSC) for the duration of the project. The Operations and Recreation staff will be making some accommodations to allow the added Engineering staff to settle in for about eight months. This will allow the Engineering space to be reconfigured to hold 20 workstations as temporary office space for each of the other impacted departments. A significant justification for this arrangement was to keep the departments with the most walk-in customers in City Hall and maintain the smaller second floor (Engineering) service counter operational for each department as they rotate into the space. The following phases include: 1. Inspections will start with moving into the vacated Engineering space for 4-5 weeks during construction. Since the permitting counter is busiest during the summer months, remodeling Inspections during the late winter was considered the logical place to begin. 2. Once the Inspections area is completed, Community Development will move into the Engineering space for 5-6 weeks during their space reconfiguration. 3. Administrative Services staff will be the next to move into the Engineering space. However due to the department size, some staff will need to utilize additional temporary workstations at the Police Station or Fire Station for the 10-12 week remodeling process. 4. Once the third floor lobby/office areas are completed and Administration returns, the Engineering space will be remodeled for 4-5 weeks before staff can return to City Hall. 5. The final phase of this project will be new floor tile and finishes in the second floor lobby area and carpeting/wall finishes for the conference rooms. Although approvals for workstation design and wall finishes must be finalized soon, according to the current schedule, the second and third floor remodeling project should be completed by September/October 2015. Reuse and Recycling – Staff has been exploring alternatives to the recycling of the current workstations. There is some interest by local non-profits which will likely require staff to deliver and assemble the furnishings. Due to the amount of labor, related expense, and timing to remove and transport any remaining items to State auction, material recycling is the recommended alternative. Customer Service – Remodeling will obviously cause some inconveniences, especially for staff. With the phased plan in place, customer service will be minimally impacted. Temporary signage will be installed to direct visitors to the department locations. Being the central core of the building, the lobby and exit systems will be maintained during business hours. The Council Chambers and restrooms will not be affected by this project and most Conference rooms will remain available. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Update - City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project Page 3 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Update - City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have any questions or concerns regarding the proposed PUD ordinance? SUMMARY: Staff proposes ordinance text amendments to the City’s PUD procedures and regulations. Staff introduced the option of revising the entire PUD section of the zoning code at the October 27, 2014 study session in the context of the Bally’s redevelopment proposal. The Council provided direction for staff to pursue a complete revision at that time. A draft PUD ordinance was provided to the Council at the December 8, 2014 study session and has also been discussed at a Planning Commission study session. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the new ordinance on January 7, 2015 and the first reading is currently scheduled for the Council’s January 20, 2015 meeting. The Planning Commission held the public hearing January 7, 2015 and no one was present to speak. The Commission recommends approval of the Ordinance changes. Planned Unit Developments are currently processed and approved by resolution, and handled more similarly to a conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed change would require each PUD to be approved as a distinct zoning ordinance, with its regulations specified in the approving ordinance and development agreement. Each PUD would be approved in the same manner as other ordinances, and a PUD designation would be placed on the zoning map. Staff also proposes revisions throughout the PUD ordinance which reorganize several sections and eliminate redundant text. These revisions are intended to clarify regulations and provide consistent language and formatting with other sections of the Zoning Code. Additional revisions relate to the policies and procedures for approving and amending PUDs. Generally, the proposed changes give the City Council more flexibility to establish and modify development standards for PUDs. The proposed procedural and policy changes are discussed in more detail later in this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft PUD Ordinance Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Staff undertook a review of the City’s PUD ordinance over a year ago at the request of the City Attorney. Staff has researched several other cities’ PUD ordinances and interviewed staff from other cities. Versions of the proposed ordinance have been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a study session and more recently at a Public Hearing. The City Attorney has also reviewed the most recent draft ordinance. City Council was presented an earlier draft of the ordinance on December 8, 2014, as a study session report. The proposed ordinance keeps certain key policy and procedural elements contained in the existing PUD ordinance, but it also contains several significant changes. The revised ordinance incorporates several elements from the City of Plymouth’s PUD ordinance in particular. Below is a more detailed description of the more substantive changes staff is proposing. Procedural Changes Preliminary and Final PUD process and approval: The proposed PUD changes still include a preliminary and final PUD process, and more clearly articulates that the preliminary and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. The preliminary and final PUD will follow similar procedures as the existing processes, but now the final PUD will be approved by ordinance. If the preliminary and final PUD are processed simultaneously, it will follow the same procedure as a preliminary PUD, requiring a public hearing, and be approved as an ordinance. PUD Amendments: Staff proposes to reclassify all amendments as either administrative or major. Administrative amendments would be expanded to include changes to: building dimensions or site modifications that are ten percent or less of the applicable measure. (i.e. ten percent change in building setbacks or building height measured in feet or to the number of tree plantings related to landscaping). Minor changes to the building materials, type of tree plantings, and changes made to the building or site to comply with the building code or accessibility requirements could also be approved administratively, similar to the current ordinance. Major amendments would include any change to those same items that is greater than ten percent, items that the Zoning Administrator determines are major, which may include changes that fall below the ten percent threshold, and items that are specified as a major amendment in the development agreement. Major amendments would now constitute an ordinance amendment, requiring a public hearing at the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. Policy Changes There are three major policy changes included in the proposed revisions to the PUD ordinance. The first is related to permitted land uses, the second is related to modifications of district regulations, and the third is requiring compliance with the City’s “Green Building Policy” for PUDs, even if TIF is not being provided. Permitted land uses: Staff proposes allowing a mix of land uses in any PUD as long as those uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff included the statement that the following uses are prohibited in any PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business. Additionally, other uses can be specifically excluded from a PUD district at the Council’s discretion. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Modifications: The proposed PUD revisions would also change the way modifications are handled. There are currently eight specified allowable modifications in the PUD section: • distance from property lines, • distance from other buildings, • building height, density, • ground floor area, • floor area ratio, • Designed Outdoor Recreation Area, and • parking. Of these allowable modifications, the density, ground floor area, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area and parking, limit the degree they can be increased or decreased from the base regulations. The distance from property lines is also limited when a PUD is adjacent to single family residential. Staff proposes changes which allows the Council to have greater discretion in how much any performance standard or dimensional standard can be changed from the base requirements. Staff proposes the following language to limit modifications for the following items: 1. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yard of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. 2. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. 3. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district. 4. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Travel Demand Management District. The Planning Commission and City Council will evaluate each proposed PUD on its own merits, and determine what performance and dimensional standards are appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Green Building Policy: The Planning Commission asked Staff to include language in the PUD ordinance related to environmental sustainability. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have expressed a desire to strengthen the City’s approach to sustainability. Staff proposes requiring that applicants for a PUD adhere to the City’s Green Building Policy, even if TIF is not being provided, expanding its applicability. Staff has also added a statement that encourages the use of green roofs or white roofs, and renewable energy. NEXT STEPS: The first reading is currently scheduled for January 20, 2015 and the second reading February 2, 2015. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update ORDINANCE NO.____-15 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 36 shall have the following Sections renumbered as follows: Secs. 36 – 6 — 36 - 3029. Reserved Sec. 36-310. Interpretation; procedures. Sec. 36-321. Registration of land use. SECTION 2. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-32. Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. (a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The intent of this section is to: (1) Allow for the greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land development. (2) Promote higher standards of site and building design. (3) Promote a more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high-quality development at a lesser cost. (4) Provide for the establishment of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. (5) Allow modifications to the strict application of regulations of conventional zoning districts that are in harmony with the goals, policies and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. (6) Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land. (7) Preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics, including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and access. (8) Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update (9) Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. (10) Encourage an increase in the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing. (11) Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this Chapter. (b) Application of section provisions. The provisions of this section shall be administered as follows: (1) Land use guidance. No PUD shall be approved on property guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development. (2) PUD regulations. A PUD district may incorporate the regulations of one or more other zoning districts as determined by the zoning administrator and designated in the ordinance creating the district. (3) Modifications. A PUD district may modify any provision of this Chapter except for the following: a. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. b. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. c. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district as designated in the approving ordinance. d. PUDs shall comply with the Travel Demand Management District. (4) Permitted land uses. Any land use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be allowed in a PUD district. Residential and non-residential uses may be included in a single PUD district. The PUD ordinance shall identify all land uses allowed in the PUD district. Any change from the uses listed in the PUD ordinance shall be considered an amendment to the PUD and shall follow the procedures specified in this section. The following uses are prohibited in a PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business (5) Minimum area. A PUD district must consist of a parcel or contiguous parcels of land at least two acres or more in size. Tracts of less than two acres may be approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that a project of superior design can be achieved or that greater compliance with comprehensive plan goals and policies can be attained through use of a PUD. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update (6) Additional Requirements. PUDs shall be subject to the imposition of additional requirements when, in the opinion of the City Council, such additional requirements are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety, neighborhood character and/or to achieve the objectives contained in Section 36-1. (c) Building and site design. The City Council shall find that the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan before a PUD ordinance may be approved. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. (5) If a PUD has been requested that involves staged construction or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall demonstrate that each stage or phase is capable of independently addressing and meeting these criteria. (6) More than one building may be placed on one lot in a PUD. (d) Submission requirements and procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and considered according to the requirements of this section. (1) Pre-Application Conference. Before filing an application for approval of a PUD, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by City Staff. Staff may schedule a review of the concept plan by the Planning Commission and/or City Council to obtain nonbinding comments on its merits. (2) Preliminary PUD plan. A complete application for a preliminary PUD plan shall include all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. b. A statement describing how the PUD will meet the stated purposes and objectives of this section. c. If land encompassed within a proposed PUD is to be platted, replatted or subdivided, all information required for consideration and approval of a preliminary plat is also required in accordance with the subdivision ordinance, and the review may be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update d. A general development plan including the following: 1. A survey of the subject property(ies) and all adjacent property(ies) of the subject property(ies). 2. The proposed use of all areas of the site. 3. The proposed density, type, size and location of all dwelling units, if dwelling units are proposed. 4. The general size, location and use of any proposed nonresidential buildings on the site. 5. All public streets, entrance and exit drives, and walkway locations. 6. Parking areas locations and calculations. 7. Landscaped areas and calculations. 8. Parks and open space, areas used for DORA, public spaces and common areas. 9. Site dimensions and building setbacks. 10. Building elevations and materials. 11. Typical floor plan and room plan. 12. Generalized drainage and utility plan. 13. Erosion control plan. 14. Storm water management plan and calculations. 15. Any other information which the City may request. 16. Acreage or square footage of individual land uses and DORA on the site. e. Generalized staging plan for the project, including the geographical sequence of construction and the number of dwelling units or square footage of nonresidential property to be constructed in each stage. f. Traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation from the site at full development, the effect of such traffic on the level of service of nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements. g. Environmental data which the City may deem necessary. This data must include a preliminary analysis of the probability of site contamination. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update (3) Final PUD plan. A complete application for a final PUD plan shall contain all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. b. A final plat that meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, and creates condominium ownership, if required. c. A final site plan drawn to scale showing the location of all structures including their placement, setbacks, size and type as well as streets, parking areas and stall arrangement, walkways and other pedestrian facilities, parking calculations, and designed outdoor recreation area including public spaces and commons. (Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04) d. A final landscape plan showing the location, size, and species of all plant materials in accordance with section 36-364, a landscaping irrigation system plan, and all other non-vegetative landscaped features. e. A final utility plan showing the location and size of all on-site utilities and easements as well as storm water runoff calculations for both the predevelopment and post-development condition of the site. All private utilities shall be labeled as such. f. Building plans at a level of detail necessary to allow parking calculations to be made and color building elevation drawings showing architectural details and proposed building materials, including the percentage of each building material coverage on each elevation. g. Floor plans and room plans. h. Photometric plan. h. Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and bylaws of any proposed homeowners' association or other documents or contracts which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD. i. A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and timing of development of the plan or portions thereof, including the estimated date of beginning and completion of each state. j. Any other project information required by the City. (4) Procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and processed according to the requirements of this Section. No application for a final PUD shall be processed until the application for a preliminary PUD has been approved by the City Council unless the Zoning Administrator determines the preliminary PUD and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update a. Preliminary PUD. An application for preliminary approval of a PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all required information comprising a Preliminary PUD plan. 1. Referral to Planning Commission. The completed application shall be reviewed by city staff and a report concerning the application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. 2. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with section 36-35(b). 3. Approval. The City Council may approve the preliminary PUD plan in whole or in part, may approve subject to conditions, may deny, or may continue consideration of the preliminary PUD plan for further investigation and hearing at a later date. 4. Denial. When a preliminary PUD plan has been denied by the City Council, the owner or applicant may not reapply for the same or similar development on the same property for the six-month period following the date of the denial. b. Final PUD. A final PUD district shall be approved by ordinance. An application for approval of a final PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all data and plans comprising a Final PUD plan. 1. The City Council shall consider the final PUD plan. If the City Council deems it necessary, it may set a public hearing for consideration of the final PUD plan. The City Council may deny the final PUD plan or may approve the final PUD plan in whole or in part. 2. No development activity may occur on a site for which a PUD has been applied, until a final PUD has been approved in whole or in part for that site. c. Preliminary and Final PUD combined. Application may be made to process a preliminary and final PUD simultaneously at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. 1. The application form for a final PUD shall be used. 2. The application shall include all data and plans comprising both a Preliminary PUD plan and Final PUD plan. 3. The approval procedure shall be the same as for a preliminary PUD, except that final approval shall be by ordinance. (5) Development agreement. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 10 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update a. The City may, at its sole discretion, require the owner and developer of a proposed PUD to execute a development agreement which may include, but not be limited to, all requirements of the final PUD plan as a condition to approval of a final PUD. b. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City, performance guarantee or cash escrow. The letter of credit shall be provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City. The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called for by the development agreement. (6) Operating and maintenance requirements for common areas. If certain land areas or structures within the PUD are designated for recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City that ensures the continued operation and maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city. (7) Zoning map. All approved PUD districts shall be designated on the City's zoning map as it is revised from time to time. (8) Building Permit. No building permit shall be issued or development shall occur on land for which a PUD district has been approved which does not conform to the approved final plan. (9) Amendments. Proposed development of land for which a PUD has been approved or modifications to existing projects which does not conform to the approved final plan shall be processed as either an Administrative Amendment or Major Amendment as defined in this subsection as determined by the Zoning Administrator. a. The Official Exhibits affected by the approved amendment shall be amended and replaced in their entirety. b. Administrative amendments. 1. Proposed changes to building dimensions involving ten percent or less of such dimension, proposed site modifications involving ten percent or less of the total existing site area, and proposed changes to other previously approved standards involving ten percent or less of such standard, which meet all ordinance requirements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to a building permit being issued and shall not require planning commission review or council approval, unless otherwise stated in the approved development agreement. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 11 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update 2. Administrative approval shall only be granted if the applicant has provided written notification to all owners of property within the PUD that such approval is being sought. The notification shall inform the property owners that approval of the proposed modification may be granted after ten calendar days have elapsed from the mailing date of the notice unless a property owner files an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within that time. If any such appeal is filed, the proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as a major amendment to the approved final plan. 3. Administrative approval may be obtained for modifications specified in the development agreement as requiring only administrative approval. 4. The Zoning Administrator may determine that a proposed amendment is a Major Amendment, even if it meets the criteria of an Administrative Amendment, and shall follow the procedure for major amendments in this Subsection. c. Major amendments. A major amendment to the approved final plan of the PUD shall be processed and approved in the same manner as a preliminary and final PUD, except that submission requirements shall be modified as appropriate by City Staff to reflect the nature of the proposed amendment. Major amendments shall include: 1. Any amendment that is not an Administrative Amendment. 2. Any amendment determined to be a Major Amendment by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Any amendment specified as such in the development agreement. (10) Final Development Plan governs use of land. The subject area shall be permanently governed by the conditions, provisions and restrictions of the approving ordinance and final development plan. The ordinance and plan, as amended from time to time, shall govern the use of the land. SECTION 3. Section 36-111 is amended to add the following subsection: (7) Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, See Section 36-32. SECTION 4. Section 36-367 and subsections 36-115(e), 36-166(e), 36-167(e), 36-194(e), 36- 223(e), 36-233(e) and 36-243(e) are deleted in their entirety and subsequent subsections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 5. Divisions 10, 11, and 12 shall be amended as follows: Division 10. Floodplain Districts Planned Unit Development Districts Division 11. Travel Demand Management District Floodplain Districts Division 12. Travel Demand Management District Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 12 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update SECTION 6. Divisions 9 and 10 shall be amended as follows: Division 9. M-X Mixed Use District *** Secs. 36-268—36-290. Reserved Division 10. Planned Unit Development Districts Secs. 36-268—36-290. Reserved SECTION 7. APPENDIX A – 2015 FEE SCHEDULE shall be amended as follows: *** COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT *** PUD – MinorAdministrative Amendment *** SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. Public Hearing January 7, 2015 First Reading January 20, 2015 Second Reading February 2, 2015 Date of Publication February 12, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect February 27, 2015 ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. ATTEST: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: __ ___ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Review Boards and Commissions Applications RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Boards and Commissions applications will be reviewed by Council for appointment consideration at the January 20, 2015, City Council Meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to appoint any of the applicants listed on the attached table to serve on a Board or Commission to fill current vacancies? SUMMARY: At the January 5 City Council Meeting, Council requested additional discussion and further review of current Boards and Commissions applications for consideration of appointments to fill current vacancies. According to the current Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions regarding qualifications, “Members must be St. Louis Park residents, but need not have expertise in any particular area. Willingness to serve and be involved are the most important attributes of members.” Staff has advertised commission vacancies on the City website, in social media and in the Sun Sailor newspaper. The City Clerk’s Office has been accepting applications for Boards and Commissions since October. With the deadline for application being January 7, 2015, a total of 12 applications have been received. • 7 applicants have been interviewed • 3 applications have been reviewed for possible interview • 2 applications have yet to be reviewed FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Boards and Commissions Vacancies Table Applications and Resumes Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Nancy Deno, Human Resources Director/Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening , City Manager 2015 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VACANCIES 1/7/2015 Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Fire Civil Service Commission Police Advisory Commission Telecommunications Advisory Commission 1.___________________ Alternate Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2017 1._____________________ Regular Member Term Expires 12/31/2017 1.___________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2015 1.___________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2015 2.___________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2017 1.____________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2017 Tiffany Hoffmann Interviewed 12/1/14 Susan Bloyer Not yet interviewed Matt Mellinger Interviewed 11/17/14 Jay Arneson Interviewed 11/17/14 Maren Anderson Not yet interviewed Patrick Noon Not yet interviewed Paul Zeigle Not yet interviewed Bob Tift Interviewed 11/17/14 Matt Mellinger Interviewed 11/17/14 Tiffany Hoffmann Interviewed 12/1/14 Tiffany Hoffmann Interviewed 12/1/14 Bryan Morben Interviewed 12/1/14 Bryan Morben Interviewed 12/1/14 Stuart Williams Interviewed 12/1/14 Cory Conley Interviewed 12/15/14 Cory Conley Interviewed 12/15/14 Kevin Donnan-Marsh Not yet interviewed Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 2 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 3 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 4 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 6 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 7 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 8 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 9 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 10 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 11 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 12 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 16 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 17 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 19 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 21 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 23 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 24 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 25 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 26 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 27 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 28 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 30 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 31 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 33 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 34 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 35 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 36 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 37 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 38 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 39 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 40 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 42 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 43 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 44 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 45 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 48 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 49 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Review Boards and Commissions Applications Page 50 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee Application Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Applications for the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee will be reviewed by Council to determine candidates for interviewing. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Which of the 18 applicants for the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee does the Council wish to interview? SUMMARY: The Southwest Green Line LRT Extension requested the City of St. Louis Park’s participation in Advisory Committees to provide guidance on a range of community issues during the engineering and environmental phases of the Southwest LRT project development. The Council has been asked to appoint: • 3 members to the Community Advisory Committee • 2 members to the Business Advisory Committee Staff advertised the opportunity on the City website and on social media. With the deadline for application being December 19, the City Clerk’s Office has accepted 3 applications for the Business Advisory Committee and 18 applications for the Community Advisory Committee. At the January 5 City Council Meeting, Council agreed to interview all 3 applicants for the Business Advisory Committee. Those interviews are currently being arranged. On January 6, Council received copies of the 18 applications for the Community Advisory Committee. After review and consideration of each application, Council is asked to discuss and decide which applicants will be interviewed. Once Staff receives direction from Council, interviews for those applicants will be arranged. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Nancy Deno, Human Resources Director/Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This report is to reaffirm the Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) that will be the subject of agreements at a future regular City Council meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The Council has affirmed it desires to move forward with entering into agreements with the Southwest Project Office for engineering and environmental work associated with the LRCI’s noted in this report. SUMMARY: Several LRCIs have been proposed for St. Louis Park. The LRCIs the Council has indicated it would like to move forward with design are: 1. Xenwood Avenue underpass 2. Beltline Boulevard underpass 3. Beltline circulation and access improvements 4. Intersection improvements at Beltline Boulevard and CSAH 25 Staff has been exploring two additional LRCIs that relate to 1) a multi-purpose trail connection along the rail tracks in the area from the Louisiana station area to the Wooddale station area, as it appears there will be available room in the rail right-of-way, and; 2) the addition of three small trail connections along the regional trail. Staff has asked the Southwest Project Office (SPO) to provide costs for these potential LRCIs as well. An overall “Master Funding Agreement” (MFA) is being drafted to provide for the transfer of funds between the Met Council and the City to work on these projects. Each individual project would be the subject of a “Subordinate Funding Agreement” (SFA), which would spell out what costs the City would pay the Met Council for the projects. In 2015, the SFAs would be for design and environmental work only, which is approximately 14% of the estimated design costs, as shown in the estimated costs table attached. Additional design will need to be undertaken by the city, particularly for the Xenwood underpass; staff is currently estimating those additional 2015 costs as well. As noted on the attached spreadsheet, the estimated design/environmental costs for the LRCI’s for the first three items noted above is approximately $2 million. NEXT STEPS: Agreements for LRCIs are anticipated to be brought forward for Council consideration on January 20, 2015 or February 2, 2015. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Cost Estimates for LRCIs Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Michele Schnitker, Interim Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) December 17, 2014 ‐ REV 12DRAFT ‐ WORK IN PROCESS1Xenwood Avenue underpass near the Wooddale Station connecting Xenwood Avenue to Highway 7 frontage road for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists1B$3,515,873 $4,819,804 $0$351,587 $70,317 $421,905 $12,657 $434,5622 Beltline Boulevard underpass at rail and trail crossings 1A$11,215,069 $15,374,400 $300,000 $1,121,507 $336,452 $1,457,959 $43,739 $1,501,6983Circulation and access improvements at Beltline Station including implementing the extension of Lynn Avenue and a new road along the north side of the rail corridor 1A$259,508 $355,752 $1,100,000 $25,951$7,785 $33,736 $1,012$34,7484 Modifications to CSAH 25/Beltline/Ottawa Improvements TBD TBDNotes 1.  Hennepin County is pursuing funding for design and construction for LRCI No. 1 and 3.2.  Environmental Documentation Professional Services Fee is based on 3% of 2014 Construction Cost for Level of Schedule Impact 1A, 2% for Level 1B and 1% for Level 2.3.  SPO Adminstrative Cost is based on 3% of combined Professional Services Fee for Design and Environmental Documentation.SFA Professional Services and SPO Administrative CostsROWEscalated Construction Cost with ContingencyADC Design Cost Estimated Environmental Documentation CostTotal Design and Environmental CostProfessional Services2014 Construction CostLevel of Schedule ImpactLRCI DescriptionSt Louis ParkSPO Administrative CostsStudy Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 8) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 2 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Street Smart SLP-Crosswalk Safety Campaign RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of the actions proposed to be taken by staff to further crosswalk safety? SUMMARY: Staff from Police, Operations and Recreation, Information Resources, and Engineering met between January and April 2014 to plan the 2014 Crosswalk Safety Initiative. IR published a news release on May 5th, and used our website, local media, and social media outlets to publicize this initiative. We focused primarily on crosswalks that were not controlled by stop signs and traffic signals, all of which were located on roads with high traffic volumes. A schedule was developed to focus on each crosswalk for at least one 4-7 day time period prior to October 31st. Between May and October of 2014 staff implemented the following 4 step process to assist in evaluating the crosswalks selected: 1. Pedestrian counts were made over a 16 hour period for each identified crosswalk to determine overall volume and time of day fluctuations. 2. Our electronic message board was deployed at each location according to the schedule, to educate drivers on the law and remind them of the presence of a crosswalk(s) in the area. 3. In- Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (turtles) were also deployed at each crosswalk location as a visible reminder and warning of the crosswalk location. It was decided to extend the placement at West End due to the high volume of pedestrians using this crosswalk. 4. Based upon information available and collected, enforcement "stings" were conducted at some locations. Violators were primarily issued warnings; however, flagrant violators did receive citations. Staff received many favorable comments from both residents and non-residents on this campaign. Staff also believes that some locations might benefit from enhancements related to engineering/ equipment/ design going forward. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Crosswalk Location Map Prepared by: John Luse, Police Chief Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Operations Superintendent Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreations Director Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Street Smart SLP-Crosswalk Safety Campaign DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Given the City’s strong commitment for the community to be walkable, staff launched an initiative called Street Smart SLP, a crosswalk safety campaign that included an educational campaign, experimentation with additional engineering tools, and increased enforcement of crosswalk laws by the St. Louis Park Police Department. The campaign focused on 13 high volume traffic crosswalks throughout the community over the summer, including: • 16th Street and West End Boulevard • Minnetonka Boulevard (various locations east of Highway 100) • 36 ½ Street and Monterey Drive • 36th Street and Beltline Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive • Excelsior Boulevard and Yosemite Avenue • Dakota Avenue and Lake Street • Excelsior Boulevard and Meadowbrook Boulevard • 36th Street and Wyoming Avenue • Minnetonka Boulevard and Rhode Island Avenue • Minnetonka Boulevard –Texas Avenue to Aquila Avenue • Cedar Lake Road and Virginia/Rhode Island avenues • Cedar Lake Road-Boone Avenue to Flag Avenue As part of the Street Smart SLP initiative, cameras were used to gather traffic and behavior patterns of pedestrians and vehicles, electronic signage was placed along the roads, and if needed, additional enforcement by the Police Department occurred. Next Steps Staff has evaluated the information gathered over the summer and has identified the following recommendations for this program. • Continue the initiative - The feedback we received from the public was overwhelmingly supportive. The group agreed that we should continue the initiative in 2015. • Continue to rotate the In - Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs and message board throughout the City during the summer months. • Review crosswalk locations to ensure that they are installed consistent with engineering standards. • Identify amendments to the Connect the Park! 10 year CIP to incorporate engineering solutions to enhance pedestrian crossing enhancements at pedestrian crosswalk locations with a high volume of pedestrian use. ^_^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_LYNN16TH NATCHEZ3 6 T HRALEIGH KIPLINGBELTLINE32ND FRANKLIN SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7 NATCHEZWAY Z A T A WB I394 TO LOUISIANA AVE S PARKNICOLLETYOSEMITEPARK CENTERLOUISIANAMONTEREYZARTHANZARTHANUTICABROOKMACKEYSERVICEJOPPALAKEEB I394 TO NB HWY169 S MORNINGSIDESB HWY100 STO EB I394 GEORGIATOLEDOLAKE 42 1/2 PARK COMMO N S 22ND INGLEWOODBLAKEVIRGINIA 14TH OREGONTEXASGLENHURST2NDXENWOOD42NDXENWOODOXFOR D FORE S T RHODEISLANDDAKOTACEDAR L A K E EB I394 T O S B H W Y 1 0 0 S 43 1/2 28TH 27TH 24TH MINNETONKA IDAHOJOPPA25T H CE D A R W O O D MEADOWBROOKBOONECLUBFORD 25TH ZINRANVICTORI A OTTAWAUTAH36TH 34TH UTICAWYOMINGZARTHANGETTYSBURG26TH FLA G QUE B EC 33RD 23RD 26TH 28TH SUMTERWESTWOOD H ILLS 29TH 1ST26TH BA R R YFLAG 29TH 16TH 14TH 18TH 34THVIRGINIA RIDGE41ST FRANKLIN 31ST 39TH 24TH 22ND 33RD 32 1/2 32NDHAMPSHIRE WALKERTEXAS 32ND EDGEWOOD37TH 25 1/2 DAKOTABROOKSIDEBOONEYUKONALABAMACOLORADOYOSEMITEALABAMAZARTHANLOUISIANAQUENTINBRUNSWICKCAMBRIDGE CEDAR SHORE WALKER OXFORD GOODRICH GLENSB HWY100 S TO WB I394 34THFLORIDA SERVIC E DR HIG H W A Y 7XYLONFAIRWAY 35TH FRANKLIN KIPLING13TH TARGETSERVICEFRANCE36 1/2JORDANLI B R A R Y GLENHURSTWOODKENTUCKYWESTSIDECOLORADOJERSEY23RDUTAH RALEIGH LYNN34 1/2SB HWY169S TO 36THST WW E S T M O R E L A N D GORHAMWALKERFRANCEVIRGINIA HUNTINGTON31ST BRUNSWICKPARK PLACEAQUILA36THHILLSBORO QUEBECQUEBECDARTXYLONOREGONMARYLANDUTAHNEVADADECATURVIRGINIABRUNSWICKNEVADAOREGONPENNSYLVANIABLACKSTONEHAMPSHIREEDGEWOODCAVELLFLORIDAPENNSYLVANIAAQUILAZINRANMARYLANDKENTUCKYJERSEYIDAHOTEXASJERSEYIDAHODAKOTAALABAMAINGLEWOODSALEMSUMTERRHODEISLANDRALEIGHFRANCEQUENTINHUNTINGTONOTTAWADAKOTAXENWOODALABAMAVERNONWOODDA L EWEBSTER VERNONTOLEDOSALEMUTICAPA R K E R NEVADA23RD STW TONBHWY169 SEDGE B R O O KYUKONFLAG23RD ELIOT VIEW ALABAMADECATURPHILLIPSCOLORADOMELROSE CAMBRIDGE 37TH NATCHEZSB HWY169S TO HWY729TH BRUNSWICKOTTAWABLACKSTONEFLAGWEBSTERCAVELL26TH SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7 CEDAR LAKE 27TH 40THNB HWY169TO HWY7UTICA22NDSB HWY169 STO WBI394NB HWY100S TOCORD25SHELARDLOUISIANAXYLONSB HWY169 TOMINNETONKABLVDPARK G L E N 394 HOV 35TH EB I394 TO LOUISIANA AVE SNB HW Y169 T O E B I394WEBSTERNB HWY1 0 0 S T O E B I 3 9 4 TOLEDOAVE S TO NBHWY100 S28TH 23RDWAYZATA H O S P I T A L SE R V I C E ")5 ")3 ")25")1 7 §¨¦394 £¤169 ¬«100¬«7 42264 17 10 13 96 7 42 65 1080 5316 14 2,500 0 2,5001,250 Feet Crosswalk LocationMap Legend Date of Study ^_5/21/2014 ^_5/29/2014 City Boundary Sidewalks Trails Ü June 16, 2014 Numbers next to locations represent the total times the crosswalk was used during the study. (Between 6:00 am and 9:45 pm) Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: Street Smart SLP-Crosswalk Safety Campaign Page 3 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: November 2014 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. This report is typically presented at the second study session each month, but because there wasn’t a second study session in December, the November report was moved to the first study session in January. The December report will be presented as scheduled in two weeks at the second January study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of November, General Fund expenditures total approximately 88.4% of the adopted annual budget, which is more than 3% under where expenditures would normally be through November. Please see the attached analysis for more details. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: November 2014 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 92% of the annual budget at the end of November. General Fund expenditures are more than 3% under at 88.4% of the adopted budget in November. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below. The budget revisions approved by Council at the December 15, 2014 meeting are reflected in this report in order to provide the most accurate information. Revisions were made to the Accounting Division budget to increase property and liability insurance premium expense and to the Park Maintenance Division budget to add the Special Service District charge for the city- owned Rec Center property. These additional expenses were offset by reducing the General Fund contingency budget. Revenues: • License and permit revenues are exceeding the total annual budget for the year at 119.7% through November. Business and liquor license revenues are exceeding the annual budgeted amount by 7.5% or $52,000, and permit revenues by 24% or $479,000. Permit activity is difficult to predict, as much of it depends on the timing of large construction projects that are beyond the City’s control. New construction permit revenue in 2014 includes the Millennium Apartments, Eliot Park Apartments, and Wooddale Flats. Permit revenue also includes large commercial alterations at Knollwood Mall and the Nestle building. • Fine revenues are exceeding budget for the year at 102.6% through November. Liquor violation and police court fines have been running higher than budget for most of the year and higher than previous year, and will likely end the year 10% to 12% over budget. Expenditures: • Administration has a budget variance of about 1% at the end of November. There were additional election costs of just under $25,000 that were incurred by the City for the County Commissioner election last spring, which have been reimbursed by Hennepin County. The offsetting revenue for these expenses appears under Intergovernmental Revenue and there is no net effect on the overall budget. • Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget because of unbudgeted expenses related to the Health in the Park program. These additional expenses are offset by unbudgeted grant revenues, which means there is no net effect on the overall budget. • Communications & Marketing has a temporary variance of about 1.5% due to expenses incurred in November for the Winter Park & Recreation brochure. An end of year overage is not anticipated. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Title: November 2014 Monthly Financial Report • Police is running an overage of less than 1% primarily due to necessary overtime expense for position vacancies in Dispatch and other unanticipated personnel costs. There may be a small overage at the end of the year. • Public Works Administration continues to have an overage which relates to a staffing allocation. The variance is caused by a budget allocation change for one of the admin positions splitting time between City Hall and the Municipal Service Center. The additional payroll expenses in Public Works Administration are offset in the Engineering budget, which is well under budget at just 33% spent to date due to this and also the City Engineer position that has been vacant. NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 2014 2014 2014 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 Balance YTD Budget Budget Actual Budget Audited Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual % General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 11,118,240$ 10,039,484$ 52.55% Licenses and Permits 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,222,852 (531,334) 119.74% Fines & Forfeits 328,150 341,356 335,150 311,882 320,150 328,542 (8,392) 102.62% Intergovernmental 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,267,061 15,716 98.77% Charges for Services 2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,702,360 155,358 91.64% Miscellaneous Revenue 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,093,049 19,320 98.26% Transfers In 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,661,381 176,035 90.42% Investment Earnings 125,000 136,415 150,000 14,180 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income 45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 17,950 12,092 5,858 67.36% Total General Fund Revenues 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 20,405,577$ 10,022,045$ 67.06% General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 872,090$ 67,301$ 92.84% Accounting 641,691 639,999 827,320 819,458 876,216 797,038 79,178 90.96% Assessing 517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 508,353 51,396 90.82% Human Resources 667,612 645,357 678,988 731,634 693,598 702,172 (8,574) 101.24% Community Development 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,014,317 137,150 88.09% Facilities Maintenance 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 899,163 154,552 85.33% Information Resources 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,256,330 200,649 86.23% Communications & Marketing 265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 529,086 37,715 93.35% Community Outreach 8,185 5,341 8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,226 1,959 76.07% Engineering 927,337 939,425 303,258 296,383 506,996 167,471 339,525 33.03% Total General Government 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 6,752,246$ 1,060,851$ 86.42% Public Safety: Police 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,004,053$ 567,262$ 92.51% Fire Protection 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,184,984 273,177 92.10% Inspectional Services 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,690,239 315,961 84.25% Total Public Safety 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 11,879,276$ 1,156,400$ 91.13% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 211,712$ 11,282$ 94.94% Public Works Operations 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,220,974 404,197 84.60% Organized Recreation 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,187,128 102,910 92.02% Recreation Center 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,416,610 127,271 91.76% Park Maintenance 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,258,879 186,934 87.07% Westwood 515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 459,932 71,921 86.48% Environment 390,009 382,378 430,876 434,297 433,750 326,593 107,157 75.30% Vehicle Maintenance 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,180,744 104,745 91.85% Total Operations & Recreation 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 8,262,572$ 1,116,417$ 88.10% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 1,126$ 2,874$ 28.16% Transfers Out - 1,160,000 - 60,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 53,345 195,860 - 195,860 0.00% Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,126$ 198,734$ 0.56% Total General Fund Expenditures 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 26,895,220$ 3,532,402$ 88.39% Study Session Meeting of January 15, 2015 (Item No. 10) Title: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Written Report: 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Polystyrene Packaging Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to update Council on progress in creating a plan to address the use of polystyrene containers. SUMMARY: Last year the City Council expressed interest in limiting the use of polystyrene containers similar to what Minneapolis enacted. A similar interest was expressed relating to plastic bags. At the November 10, 2014 Study Session, staff provided Council an update on the Solid Waste Program which included staff’s intent to prepare a plan for addressing polystyrene and plastic bags. Since that time staff has surveyed food establishments to determine polystyrene (PS) use, their reasons for using PS, and barriers to using alternatives. Other information gathered in the survey included interest level in switching to alternative packaging products, starting organics recycling, and what materials were currently being recycled. The survey is being re-sent to businesses who did not respond. This information will be used to prepare the plan for polystyrene as well as identifying food establishments needing to improve recycling to comply with the State’s upcoming recycling mandate. Most commercial buildings are required by the State to begin recycling at least three recyclable material types by January 1, 2016 as defined in Statute 115A.151 (attached). Polystyrene Survey: Surveys were sent to the 139 food establishments in St. Louis Park that are licensed through Hennepin County, resulting in a 32% response rate (survey results attached). The responses provided the following key information: • 47% of respondents use PS for take-out containers, cups, or serving food. • Of those that use PS, the majority indicated they use PS because it is the best option for take- out orders, it is low cost, or both. • Of those that use PS, 48% are interested in both using alternatives and organics recycling. • Only 53% of the respondents have a current recycling program in place that meets the State’s recycling requirement. Next Steps: Staff will provide a plan and suggested goals for discussion with Council during a February Study Session. This plan will include goals that will address both polystyrene and plastic bags as they relate to current and future solid waste program requirements. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Polystyrene Survey Results Minnesota Statute 115A.151 Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager, Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Attachment 1 Survey of Food Establishments – Polystyrene, Solid Waste, Recycling & Organics The City of St. Louis Park is conducting a survey of licensed food establishments to better understand garbage, recycling and organic waste practices, and to determine the number of businesses using Styrofoam food or beverage containers. This information will be used to increase recycling and organic waste collection, as well as help educate businesses on the available alternatives. Please complete and return this survey by December 8, 2014. We’ve guaranteed postage on the return of your completed survey. Please answer the following about «Establishment_Name» at «Establishment_Address», St. Louis Park, MN. 1. Does your business use polystyrene containers, also known as Styrofoam? (Yes or No) • If so, how is it used? (Check all that apply) Take-out/to-go containers Cups Other (please explain:__________________________) 2. What is the primary reason for using Styrofoam containers? (Check all that apply) Cost savings Best option for take-out/to-go No alternative options Other (please explain:__________________________) 3. Are you interested in receiving information on recyclable/compostable container options? (Yes or No) 4. Describe the level of garbage service you have (Circle one): 2yd 4yd 6yd 8yd Other_____ (Hint: A 2yd container is similar in size to two washing machines placed side by side) • How often is it picked up? Daily Every other day Weekly 5. Does your business recycle? (Check all that apply) Aluminum/Steel Cans Cardboard Glass Paper Other (please explain:____________________________) 6. Does your business collect organic wastes for composting (ex: food waste, napkins, paper towels)? (Yes or No) • If not, why not? ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Are you interested in receiving more information about how you can collect organic waste for composting and possible cost savings? (Yes or No) 8. Help reduce paper waste by providing a company email address for your business to receive useful information on garbage, recycling, and organic waste collection: ______________________________________________ (A company email, rather than an individual employee email, is preferred.) Please contact Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator, at (952) 924-2183 or kfisher@stlouispark.org with questions. Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 11) Title: Polystyrene Packaging Update Page 2 1a Use PS?4a Garbage Dumpster Size Code Response Count Percent Code Response Count Percent 1 Yes 21 47%1 2yd 5 11% 1 No 24 53%1 4yd 8 18% 45 100%1 6yd 7 16% 1 8yd 7 16% 1b How PS is used*Narrative Other 11 24% Code Response Count n/a No response 7 16% 1 Take-out 14 45 100% 1 Cups 8 Narrative Other 2 4b Frequency *More than one option may be selected Code Response Count Percent 1 Daily 6 13% 2_Reasons for use*1 Every Other Day 13 29% Code Response Count 1 Weekly 10 22% 1 Cost 9 1 2 times/Week 7 16% 1 Best option 11 n/a No response 9 20% 1 No alternate 2 45 100% Narrative Other 4 *More than one option may be selected 5_Recycling Code Response Count Percent INTEREST IN MORE INFORMATION 1 Aluminum/Steel 28 22% 1 Cardboard 40 32% 3_Interest in alternatives 1 Glass 25 20% Code Response Count Percent 1 Paper 30 24% 1 Yes 18 40%Narrative Other 2 2% 1 No 16 36%125 100% n/a No response/other comments 11 24% 45 100%6a Collect Organics? Code Response Count Percent 7_Interest in organics 1 Yes 11 24% Code Response Count Percent 1 No 34 76% 1 Yes 20 44%45 100% 1 No 17 38% n/a No response/other comments 8 18%Other Recycle at least 3 material types 45 100%Count Percent 24 53% Other Uses PS & Interest in alternatives 45 Code Response Count Percent 1 Yes 14 67% 1 No 3 14% n/a No response/other comments 5 24% 21 105%INTEREST IN MORE INFO (CONTINUED) Other Uses PS & Interest in organics Other Code Response Count Percent Code Response Count Percent 1 Yes 12 57%1 Yes 10 48% 1 No 5 24%21 100% n/a No response/other comments 4 19% 21 100% Attachment 1 - Polystyrene Survey Results POLYSTYRENE USE GARBAGE/RECYCLING/ORGANICS PRACTICES # of Respondents # of Respondents Code # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Responses # of Respondents Using PS # of Respondents Using PS # Using PS Uses PS-Interest in alternatives & organics 1 # of Respondents Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 11) Title: Polystyrene Packaging Update Page 3 Study Session Meeting of January 12, 2015 (Item No. 11) Title: Polystyrene Packaging Update Page 4