HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/08/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
AUGUST 6, 2012
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Westwood Hills Nature Center Junior Naturalist Recognition
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes June 25, 2012
3b. Study Session Minutes July 9, 2012
3c. Special Study Session Minutes July 16, 2012
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes July 16, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt First
Reading of Ordinance approving the amendment to the Administrative Penalties
regulations, and to set the second reading for August 20, 2012.
6b. First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading
of Ordinance amendment to Chapter 3 of City Code concerning Brewer Taproom on-
sale malt liquor licensing and to set second reading for August 20, 2012.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
Meeting of August 6, 2012
City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Brewery Taprooms
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending the
Zoning Code pertaining to Brewery Taprooms, and to set the second reading for August
20, 2012.
8b. National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a marketing agreement with
Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. agreeing to cooperate in the marketing of
their program to city residents and homeowners.
8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending the
Zoning Code pertaining to Conditional Use Permits, and to set the second reading for
August 20, 2012.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of August 6, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Authorize the execution of an encroachment agreement for grading on City property next to
9209 Cedar Lake Road
4b. Adopt Resolution amending Cooperative Agreement No. 94808 with Mn/DOT Highway
7/Wooddale Interchange Improvement, Project No. 2004-1700
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for Minnetonka Boulevard trail improvements
4d. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$36,609.80 for the Redevelopment of Northside Park, Contract No. 33-11
4e. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes of June 13, 2012
4f. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 2012
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board
in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by
noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the Planning Commission 2011
Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the activities of the Planning Commission in keeping with the expectations of the Council?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission Annual Report and the Work Plan at the
March 12, 2012 study session. The Council requested the opportunity to meet with the Planning
Commission to discuss the 2011 Annual Report and the 2012 Work Plan.
This year applications for development projects are down from previous years, with some
development taking longer to obtain financing and move forward. This has allowed more time
for study items, including SWLRT, zoning ordinance updates, and other study items.
The Planning Commission has spent considerable time updating the zoning ordinance over the
past few years. These updates include addressing the changes to the state law on variances, and
revising the temporary uses and electronic signs provisions. In 2012, the Commission has
addressed or is also addressing the Business Park zoning district, brewery taprooms, Conditional
Use Permits, outdoor lighting, and food trucks while continually revamping these portions to
make the code more understandable and enforceable.
Planning Commissioners are also participating in the Beltline Station Area Advisory Committee
and the Community Recreation Task Force. One member will also be a part of the Advisory
Committee on the Louisiana Station Area planning project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2011 Annual Report
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
2011 St. Louis Park
Planning Commission
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Chair
Robert Kramer, Vice-Chair
Carl Robertson
Dennis Morris
Lynne Carper
Richard Person
Larry Shapiro, School Board Representative
St. Louis Park Planning Staff
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Adam Fulton, Planner
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Summary of Applications
In 2010, the Planning Commission held public hearings on numerous applications. The cases are
listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow.
Applications Processed* 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
4 1 1 2 0 1
Conditional Use Permits/
Special Permit Amendments 14 8 9 5 8 1
Planned Unit Developments 3 5 5 4 4 4
Re-zonings 2 2 2 2 0 1
Subdivisions/Plats 11 7 5 1 6 3
Variances 7 1 5 2 3 3
Zoning Code Amendments 3 3 5 0 4 2
* Some projects may have required multiple applications.
Development and Redevelopment
Projects that came before the Planning Commission in 2011 are briefly summarized below:
Tower Place - Planned Unit Development (PUD) 5300 Excelsior Blvd
A Major Amendment to the Tower Place Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the
expansion of an outdoor patio by Granite City Food & Brewery. The request was required because
the expanded outdoor patio changes the underlying parking requirements for the PUD.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Eldridge 1st Addition – Final Plat 8849 Minnetonka Blvd
A Final Plat to allow for the subdivision of the property at 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard into five (5)
new lots. The lots are serviced by a new public street, “Cobblecrest Court,” which is a cul-de-sac
going south from Minnetonka Boulevard on the east side of the site.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Park Summit/36 Park Apartments – PUD Major Amendment 3601 Park Center Blvd
A Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Summit development site located at 3601 Park
Center Boulevard. The PUD amendment allows the total density on the site to increase from 145
to 192 residential units. The PUD amendment also provides for modifications to the building’s
design, including modifications to the architectural design and materials and a reduction in the
building’s overall height from 14 stories to 10 stories (and 145 feet to 125 feet). The building
footprint and other site design issues remain consistent with the original PUD approval from 2003;
despite the intent to construct a market-rate building the developers believe that the building will
continue to attract many senior tenants.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat 8910 & 8920 Minnetonka Blvd
A Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision of two lots at 8910 and 8920 Minnetonka Boulevard
into six (6) new lots. Four lots are serviced by Ensign Blvd, and two lots share an access to
Minnetonka Blvd.
Action taken:
Recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved Preliminary Plat.
Minikahda Mobile Service Station – Rezoning, CUP and
Variance 3901 & 3921 Excelsior Blvd
A rezoning to change the site’s zoning from C-1 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor
vehicle service with a carwash, and a Variance to reduce the distance requirement between the
carwash and an adjacent residential property. The rezoning was required in order for the CUP and
Variance to be considered, because carwashes are not permitted in the C-1 district. The site is
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, both
of which are County Roads.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Plan by Neighborhood Section of the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Citywide
In 2009, the City facilitated a neighborhood input process to update its “Plan by Neighborhood”
section of its Comprehensive Plan. The input and detailed information for each neighborhood were
updated and finalized. A public hearing was conducted, and the neighborhood leaders were notified
and directed to the website for the detailed plans.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD 5200 Excelsior Boulevard
A Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Village site at 5200 Excelsior Boulevard on the
northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. The PUD site includes several restaurant
buildings and the Mann Theater. It is immediately to the west of the Park Nicollet Clinic campus.
The PUD amendment allows for construction of a new 6,600 square foot retail/restaurant building
along Excelsior Boulevard, conversion of the entire first floor of the existing theater building to retail
use, elimination of all theater use on the site, modifications to the site and parking layout south of
the theater building, and changes to the McDonald’s site including a small drive-through building
expansion.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”) – PUD, Plat and Variances 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Bader Development proposed a second phase to the Ellipse on Excelsior development on the former
American Inn property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard. The proposed Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”)
redevelopment is a five-story, 58-unit apartment building with structured underground and at-grade
parking. The proposed second phase does not include commercial uses.
The application included a preliminary and final plat with a subdivision variance, a PUD Major
Amendment, a side yard variance, and a rear yard variance.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the application.
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Zoning Ordinance amendments that were reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2010 are
summarized below:
Temporary Uses – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
An amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow special events such as carnivals and festivals to
operate for more than 14 days in a calendar year with City Council approval. The update was to
Sections 36-82 and 36-142 pertaining to “Temporary Uses.”
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
Variances – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
An amendment to Section 36-33(d) of the zoning ordinance, pertaining to variances. The purpose
of the amendment is to make the ordinance consistent with new state law.
Action taken:
Recommended approval.
Result of Planning Commission recommendation:
Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ITEMS
In addition to the action items listed above, the Planning Commission also discussed the following
items:
2010 Housing Report
Non-Conforming Expansion Permits
Business Park Zoning District
Southwest LRT and Freight Rail Studies Update
Temporary Use Ordinance Amendment
Zoning Ordinance Update – Variances
Health Impact Assessment for St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2012 Work Plan
1. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs),
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings,
Preliminary Plats and Variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make
recommendations to the City Council.
Potential and Continuing Applications:
Ellipse 2 Business Park District
Reuse of old Luther Westside building Knollwood Mall PUD Amendment
Gateway Development (Kentucky/Wayzata)
Eliot School
B’nai Emet Synagogue reuse
Holy Family
2. Updates to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance – Continue work to update the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, including Business Park Zoning District, lighting
provisions; review the landscaping and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA)
requirements; consider the Planned Unit Development (PUD) structure and provisions;
miscellaneous clarifications and addressing the overall organization of the ordinance.
3. Long Range Planning Studies
Community Development Staff will continue to work on a number of long range planning
studies, most related to Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW LRT). The Planning
Commission will be involved in several ways, including being regularly updated and
informed as work moves forward, and will contribute by serving on committees and task
forces on various subjects.
Beltline Station Area - A variety of studies and processes are underway to plan for the
Beltline Station Area. At the city level, several issues are being studied, including:
1. Design Guidelines Advisory Committee - January to June 2012 – Carl Robertson and
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Task Force members.
2. Surface water management study by Barr Engineering
3. Circulation and access planning (SRF) - Expected public process second half of 2012.
Pre-development planning grants were given by the Metropolitan Council for 1 and 2 above.
Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Louisiana Station Area – A Metropolitan Council pre-development grant was given to the City
to study changing land use activities and opportunities to improve connectivity between the
station, major activity generators, and redevelopment sites. The further planning will include
more detailed station area plans and details for implementation, soil testing to determine
development feasibility, including analysis for stormwater infrastructure. It is expected this
work will begin in the second half of 2012, and will include a Task Force of neighbors,
business and property owners.
Community Facilities Task Force – The planning staff and Planning Commission (Claudia
Johnston-Madison for the Planning Commission) will participate in the Park and Recreation
Department’s Task Force on Community Recreation Facilities. The Task Force will gather
additional information regarding recreation and facility needs and make recommendations to
the City Council regarding the addition of future recreation facilities or programs. The work
is underway and the group is expected to complete its work in October 2012.
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Westwood Hills Nature Center Junior Naturalist Recognition
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to thank the Junior Naturalists for their service this summer; and introduce
Westwood Hills Nature Center Activity Specialist Sarah Skinner, who will provide background
and current information on the summer program. (Becky McConnell, Naturalist will be the full-
time staff person attending.)
The Mayor is then asked to recognize each of the Junior Naturalists.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
There are 66 youth volunteers involved in the program. By the end of summer, they will have
volunteered over 1,600 hours. Several of these volunteers have been involved for up to six years.
The Junior Naturalist Program has been part of Westwood Hills Nature Center for 22 years.
Junior Naturalists are students entering 7th grade through 12th grade who are interested in serving
their community while gaining knowledge and experience in the outdoors.
There are five areas that they can be involved in:
Animal Care: Junior Naturalists feed, care for, and handle Westwood’s display and
programming animals, including three snakes, a box turtle, a tarantula, tree frogs, a
skunk, and others. This includes cleaning cages, monitoring the animals’ general health,
and educating the public with basic animal information.
Program Aide: Junior Naturalists assist staff members with supervising and running
Westwood’s various summer camps and programs. This includes setting up, directing
games, supervising hikes and other activities, cleaning up, and interacting with a diverse
range of children.
Trail Phenology: Junior Naturalists hike Westwood’s trails, learn to identify various
animals and plants, and record sightings and seasonal changes over the course of the
summer. The information gathered on their hikes allows for the tracking of long-term
environmental trends at a local level.
Bird Feeding and Projects: Junior Naturalists maintain and refill Westwood’s
birdfeeders, ensuring they always attract birds for the enjoyment of the public. They also
complete various projects such as updating the interpretive center’s insect displays, light
trail maintenance, and raising polyphemus moth caterpillars.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Westwood Hills Nature Center Junior Naturalist Recognition
Pond Maintenance: Junior Naturalists maintain and monitor Westwood’s new water
garden with the intent of displaying it to the public and developing it over multiple years.
Activities include cleaning debris and removing algae, planting and watering native trees,
shrubs and grasses, and maintaining water levels.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This program is consistent with St Louis Park’s commitment to environmental stewardship and
connecting and engaging the community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 25, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Kraayenbrink), Deputy
Police Chief (Mr. DiLorenzo), Police Lieutenant (Ms. Dreier), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Harcey),
Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Recreation Superintendent (Mr.
Birno), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Burr).
Guests: Mike Lamb, Cunningham Group Architecture, Inc., Community Recreation Facility
Task Force Members (Mr. Odens, Ms. Walters, Mr. Worthington – also present as Vice Chair of
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 9, 2012
Mr. Harmening introduced the proposed special study session agenda for July 9, 2012.
Councilmember Sanger noted the next meeting is quite full and requested that items be moved to
future meetings should anything be added to the agenda.
Councilmember Hallfin stated a beekeeper has invited the Council to visit her bees if there is
interest.
2. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update
Ms. Walsh introduced the topic, stating that the Task Force has had great, healthy conversations.
She noted at the forefront are the residents’ surveys, and an emergent theme is gathering places
in the community along with an activity-driven location for all ages.
Ms. Walters recalled the Task Force site visits in February, including Edinborough Park in
Edina, Chaska Community Center, and the Eden Prairie Community Center. She outlined the
Edinborough Park first, noting she has taken her grandchildren to the indoor park, but the facility
does not offer much for older kids and nothing for teens. The swimming center seems somewhat
disjointed, and the facility is inconveniently located.
Ms. Walters next highlighted the Task Force visit to the Chaska Community Center, which has
an impressive Lodge for senior citizens. There are many other notable amenities, with the
confusing layout being its primary drawback.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
Ms. Walters stated the Eden Prairie Community Center has lots of amenities as well, including
top-of-the-line fitness equipment. She noted the atmosphere was different; it was more of a
fitness club and competitive athletics and not as family friendly as the other facilities.
Ms. Walters summarized that the tour was helpful to opening the eyes of the Task Force and
confirmed the overall goal to help make St. Louis Park engaging, welcoming, convenient, and
distinctive for the healthy living of all citizens.
Mr. Worthington reviewed the process undergone by the Task Force to date. After the survey
results were reviewed, the facilities were toured, and through the course of seven sessions, the
‘top 3’ lists were created and refined. Programming was discussed extensively. Mr. Worthington
stated that the Task Force agreed on a program, which is included in the Council packet, that is
aimed at being something warm and open with conversation spaces.
Mr. Odens outlined the Working Program as proposed by the Task Force: gymnasium, drop-in
childcare, community room, commons/gathering, coffee shop/snack bar, pool, kids’ play/flex
area, a fireplace with a homey type of feel, track around or over the gym, openings to other
spaces and outdoors, fitness equipment, mechanicals, outdoor space, and parking of
approximately 227 spaces. He noted the goal is not to compete with Lifetime or L.A. Fitness in
terms of a fitness center.
Councilmember Mavity asked about the square footage of the Rec Center, and Ms. Walsh
responded that it is comparable.
Councilmember Mavity thanked the Task Force for their efforts. She asked about indoor turf,
and recalled that the turf at the Plymouth Community Center is the only thing that cash-flows.
Ms. Walsh responded that the high school is adding turf, and that is a good start for the
community.
Mr. Worthington stated the idea of turf came up early on but has not been pursued because of the
large footprint needed and the difficulty in creating it as a money-making endeavor.
Ms. Walsh added that turf did not meet the top of the survey needs, neither did tennis courts.
Councilmember Mavity noted that turf allows for multi-use rather than just tennis. She asked the
Task Force for more information on including turf.
Councilmember Sanger thanked the Task Force for their efforts. She stated that turf is more for
teens and organized sports, which is not the focal point of the Community Recreation Facility.
She asked if the Task Force has discussed whether Lennox should be merged into a new facility,
along the lines of the Lodge model in Chaska.
Ms. Walsh responded that some type of a merger may occur naturally over time with active
seniors naturally gravitating toward this new type of facility. She stated the community room
should be multipurpose for the 16 hours seniors are not using it each day.
Councilmember Sanger suggested the following idea be explored if it has not already: a possible
partnership with L.A. Fitness to put on the addition the City wants, and in return a discount
would be provided to St. Louis Park residents.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
Mr. Worthington stated next steps include the question of location as well as investigating a few
items more deeply, such as the turf and/or merging with an existing facility to take advantage of
existing parking.
Mayor Jacobs stated a preference for a location that is central as well as on a public transit line.
Councilmember Ross agreed with the importance of a central location as well as public
transportation accessibility.
Councilmember Santa noted that Highway 100 is a natural barrier in the City.
Councilmember Sanger suggested considering the value of tearing down a blighted building and
replacing with this new facility.
Councilmember Mavity suggested a criterion of considering what the City currently has that can
be added on to or made more efficient. One Metro city, for example, built a recreation facility.
Councilmember Spano asked the Task Force about looking at the monthly pricing structure for a
facility like L.A. Fitness and Lifetime, since this proposed facility seems mostly like a work-out
space. He suggested it might be challenging to take people away from those facilities to a new
one. He stated the proposed facility feels too focused on the workout piece at the expense of the
other priorities.
Mr. Worthington responded that a workout facility is not the intent of the proposal, and that the
vision for exercise equipment is much smaller than something like a Lifetime.
Ms. Walsh noted that theater turned out to be not a high-ranking use, and in actuality, there is
quite a bit of underused theater space in the St. Louis Park area.
Mr. Odens commented that the goal of the proposed facility is to create a space for all ages and
not to compete with Lifetime or L.A. Fitness.
Mayor Jacobs concurred that the government should not compete with what the private sector
does better. The facility should have a greater public purpose and support the idea of citizens
being able to get together.
Mr. Harmening indicated that at an approximate project cost of $300/square foot, it would be
$18 - $20 million, which does not include land acquisition or parking. Councilmember Mavity
noted that figure also does not include annual operating costs.
Ms. Walsh noted that at the proposed facility, membership would not be required, a distinctive
from Lifetime or L.A. Fitness.
Councilmember Spano commented that part of the Council’s responsibility is to look at what the
needs might be 15 years from now.
Councilmember Sanger stated people go to work-out facilities for a specific reason. A much
broader group of people would feel comfortable going to this type of community center.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
Ms. Walters indicated there are multiple rooms with the potential for different types of uses, but
affordability also has to be considered and is open for discussion.
Councilmember Santa stated when she thinks about the community center, she thinks about it
being an event-driven space rather than for a purpose like Lifetime. She noted that seniors like
to be around others, but with the ability to separate from the noise.
Councilmember Ross noted that in all practicality this facility would have to be multiple levels.
She also noted that any space designated for seniors, like the Lodge, could serve as a dual space.
Councilmember Mavity noted that sports teams tend to build community, so including indoor
turf would help build community.
Councilmember Hallfin thanked the Task Force for their work and agreed that demolishing
blighted buildings would be wonderful.
Councilmember Santa noted for the record she is not in favor of turf in any way and that other
priorities are much more critical.
Ms. Walsh summarized that the Task Force will investigate a few other areas of interest to the
Council, recommend some locations, and recommend a public process back to the City Council.
Councilmember Mavity asked at what point the financing will be discussed. Mr. Harmening
noted that bonds will have to be issued to finance the project.
Mr. Lamb asked for clarity on whether the Council wants indoor turf to be considered. Mayor
Jacobs directed in the affirmative that it can be considered.
3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work
Plan
Mr. Worthington introduced the 2011 year-end report as well as the 2012 work plan included in
the Council packet. He highlighted what the Commission has worked on this past year.
Councilmember Santa asked about the old playground equipment being sent to kids in other
countries. Ms. Walsh noted a non-profit organization helps them refurbish and send them to
other countries so the playsets are entirely safe and usable for other children.
Mr. Worthington noted there are a few new members in the work group, and that the Advisory
Commission will possibly be inviting the Council on a biking trip.
Councilmember Ross asked Ms. Walsh to look into drinking fountains and recycling bins. Ms.
Walsh noted all of the active athletic areas have them, and they will look into more.
Councilmember Ross noted accessibility to restrooms during the day is an issue and suggested
possibly working with the police department to prevent graffiti.
Mr. Harmening noted there are consequences to having the restrooms open during the day.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Worthington and the entire Commission.
4. Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and asked for direction.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was very impressed by the quality of the applicants.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to take the top 15 applicants for the Task
Force.
Ms. Deno stated there will be formal appointments on the consent agenda at the next Council
meeting.
5. Administrative Penalties – Next Steps
Ms. McMonigal introduced the staff report and noted this has been under discussion for quite
some time.
Mr. Harmening stated the staff wanted to check in one more time with the Council before putting
the streamlined ordinance into place.
Mr. Morrison highlighted several different methods for enforcing ordinances. He also explained
the citation process.
Councilmember Spano asked about the citation process for those traveling out of town for
extended periods of time. Ms. McMonigal stated the City works with the violators in each
situation, and the goal is to have the quickest resolution possible.
Councilmember Sanger asked about inconsistent enforcement, particularly with things like lack
of snow shoveling.
Mr. Harmening stated the City enforces on a complaint basis, since staff cannot drive around
looking for violations all day.
Mr. Morrison added that staff looks at other properties in close proximity as well.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move ahead with the next step of
implementing the simplified administrative penalties.
Ms. McMonigal stated staff will bring the ordinance back for adoption by the Council.
6. Police Department Annual Report
Mr. Luse introduced the 2011 Police Department Annual Report. He noted that the policing
model has evolved over time into a community policing model that is “a mile wide and a mile
deep.” He asked the four lieutenants to discuss what they deal with most in their specific areas.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
Mr. Luse also noted on average, there is one murder per year and most have roots in domestic
violence.
Mr. DiLorenzo highlighted portions of the annual report, including the Emergency Response
Unit, outlining their training and participation in the Southwest ERU consortium. He also noted
the department is responsible for solicitor permits. The department also handles the permits to
purchase and permits to carry for hand guns and rifles.
Councilmember Ross asked about the procedure for gun shops handling IDs. Mr. DiLorenzo
explained the steps the police department takes, which are followed by the gun store calling in to
the federal system for an additional layer of checks.
Councilmember Sanger asked about mental health situations, and Mr. DiLorenzo stated those are
very difficult to track because many are not officially reported.
Mr. DiLorenzo also explained the role of Cornerstone, a domestic advocacy group during court
services. He stated that Cornerstone does an outstanding job.
Mr. Kraayenbrink then discussed patrol operations as outlined in the annual report. He noted
there were 25,000 non-emergency calls for service. He explained the various operational
strategies and highlighted the electronic Roll Call.
Mr. Luse stated that the Roll Call training provides an opportunity to review important policies
and procedures such as our “Bias Policing” policy.
Mr. Harmening asked Chief Luse to describe the “pursued driving policy.”
Mr. Luse explained the pursued driving policy is simply that police officers can pursue a suspect
when there is good reason to believe great bodily harm or death has happened or might happen.
Councilmember Santa stated she is worried about foot chases more than car chases, as suspects
end up going into other people’s homes while fleeing the police.
Mr. Luse stated occurrences of chases are rare and have not increased since this pursued driving
policy changed.
Mr. Kraayenbrink stated half of police deaths in the line of duty involve car accidents. He noted
a lot of police activities revolve around quality of life issues. The issue of coyotes has simmered
down the last couple of months. Panhandlers are a tough issue, and traffic complaints are
common. He explained the speed board process as well as ticketing for snow, special event
staffing, neighborhood events, and the like.
Mr. Harcey described that his division supports the efforts of the patrol division. He stated his
investigators triage all cases and review for follow-up investigation. He outlined the process for
investigation and discussed in particular the role of the investigator who handles all West End
cases in order to facilitate continuity in those cases.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the West End and whether a crime problem exists there.
Mr. Harcey responded that there is not currently a crime problem, and that the City has been able
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of June 25, 2012
to stay ahead of it. He noted support services also do liquor and tobacco license compliance
checks as well as background investigations and predatory offender checks.
Councilmember Ross asked if the premises are inspected for predatory offender checks. Mr.
Harcey stated there are privacy laws that must be respected, so the basic idea of the check is to
ensure the offender is actually living there as reported.
Mr. Harcey discussed other support services, including the Meadowbrook Collaborative
Homework Help, Louisiana Court Basketball Night, Bike Patrol, Lakeland Hotel Project, 8400
Minnetonka Project, YesMart information gathering projects, and providing support at public
speaking engagements.
Mr. Harcey discussed the role of school liaisons as well as participation in the SW Metro Drug
Task Force. He described the trends in property crimes, particularly financial fraud.
Ms. Dreier discussed her role in police department communications, noting over 30,000 911 calls
were received last year, as well as over 70,000 non-emergency calls. Currently, Minnetonka is
the back-up call center.
Ms. Dreier discussed the various roles of the Community Outreach Officer and Community
Outreach Liaison as well as the structure of Information Management, including the website,
mapping, monthly and annual reports. She also discussed the successful graffiti initiative.
Councilmember Santa noted St. Louis Park has a great reputation for community policing.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity noted St. Louis Park received an award at the League of Cities
Conference for being a Step One City.
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. Brewer Taprooms
9. May 2012 Monthly Financial Report
10. Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 9, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross (arrived at
6:35 p.m.), Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano (arrived at 6:35 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Jeff Miller (HKGi), Carl Robertson (Planning Commissioner), Bob Cunningham
(Developer), and April Crockett (Mn/DOT).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 16 and July 23, 2012
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for July 16, 2012, and the
proposed study session agenda for July 23, 2012.
2. Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design Guidelines
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and stated the City received a grant from Met Council
to prepare Design Guidelines for the Beltline LRT station area. She indicated the City held an
open house in November 2011 and formed an Advisory Committee to work with City staff and
Mr. Miller on the Design Guidelines. She presented the draft Design Guidelines and recited the
vision for the Beltline area. She then introduced Mr. Carl Robertson and Mr. Bob Cunningham
who serve on the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Cunningham commended the City for having the foresight to obtain the Met Council grant
and prepare Design Guidelines for the Beltline area. He stated the Design Guidelines will put
the City in the forefront and will give the City time to implement its vision for this area.
Ms. McMonigal stated the Design Guidelines focus on preserving and enhancing the Beltline
area with development along the west side of Beltline from 36th Street south to the light rail line.
She stated the Advisory Committee had a lot of discussion about park, street, and sidewalk and
trail connections because these are integral to how any site will be developed and to ensure
appropriate sidewalks, connections, and plazas are located near all of the station areas. She
stated the City has been working with SRF on circulation and access issues and the Advisory
Committee will be reconvened in the fall to further work on these issues. She noted that Council
will discuss circulation and access plans at a study session in August.
Councilmember Ross requested that the City make sure the Design Guidelines meet all ADA
standards as it relates to accessibility.
Mr. Robertson stated that any development has to incorporate the latest technology and there was
a lot of discussion at the Advisory Commission meetings about the trail that crosses Beltline.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of July 9, 2012
Councilmember Sanger encouraged Council to read the entire set of Design Guidelines. She
requested further information regarding the goal to make this area more pedestrian friendly and
felt the development of eight or ten story buildings in the area might conflict with this goal.
Mr. Robertson stated that mixed uses in this area, including taller buildings, will include
restaurants or retail at street level and the buildings would probably terrace back from the street.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was any discussion regarding how the Design Guidelines
will be impacted depending on what happens with freight rail.
Ms. McMonigal advised that freight rail will be addressed during the work on circulation and
access issues and will address grade separation at that time also.
Mr. Miller referenced diagram 2.3 which shows building heights of three to five stories along the
south side of the rail line across from Bass Lake Preserve while the business section has building
heights up to eight stories. He added that the pedestrian focus will be on the south side toward
Wolfe Park and Excelsior and Grand.
Councilmember Santa stated the City will have three stations and this provides an opportunity
for the City to brand these three stations. She added there should be discussion regarding the
City’s brand and what face the City wants to show the public in terms of selling the community
to businesses, new and current residents, and visitors.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the same process will be used for the other two stations.
Ms. McMonigal explained the City received a grant for the Louisiana Avenue station and that
process will be started this fall. She added that Hennepin County Community Works has
$800,000 to spend on all the stations and that process is underway now.
Councilmember Mavity applauded the City’s efforts in securing the Met Council grant and felt
the City’s work on the Beltline station will serve as a prototype for the rest of the SWLRT
stations. She expressed concern regarding circulation issues and the Highway 100 reconstruction
project, stating that at one point Council talked about a road between Beltline and Highway 100
on the other side of Nordic Ware which is not shown on any of the diagrams.
Ms. McMonigal stated that SRF has been working on this and further information including
options for addressing circulation issues will be presented to Council in the next month.
It was the consensus of the City Council to accept the Beltline Station Area Design Guidelines as
developed through the Advisory Committee.
3. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Outdoor Lighting ordinance. She
advised that it appears impossible to meet the requirement that a light source or its reflected
image not be seen off-site particularly as it relates to outdoor recreational lights. She stated the
proposed ordinance contains new requirements for measuring light which results in a different
standard that is clearer and which can be measured consistently.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of July 9, 2012
Mr. Miller stated the new ordinance contains a higher standard noting that the current ordinance
allows 0.5 footcandles at the property line for all outdoor lighting. He indicated their research
found it was very atypical to have recreational lighting held to the same standards as other lighting.
Mr. Fulton demonstrated how light is measured under the current ordinance and how it will be
measured under the new ordinance, noting that the lighting consultant informed the City it
should be measuring the maximum plane of light which will be different for a car lot versus
recreational lighting and this measurement will yield a higher number.
Councilmember Spano stated he would like to see requirements for using natural landscaping or
plantings to help shield neighboring properties. He asked if there was any discussion about using
landscaping around recreational facilities that abut residential properties to prevent fixtures from
being viewed from the property line.
Ms. McMonigal agreed to research this further. She added that the City reviews lighting and
landscaping plans as part of its review of site plans and the issue of shielding neighboring
properties from light glare could be addressed at that time.
Mr. Miller noted that the ordinance contains a new requirement to submit a visual impact plan
when applications for outdoor lighting are submitted to the City.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the third sentence of paragraph (d)(6) be revised to state
“where technically feasible, a low level lighting system shall be installed to be used for patrons
leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime maintenance and other closing activities.” She also
suggested that the ordinance include some time limits or specify the maximum number of hours
or days of the week for hours of operation. She also asked if the new ordinance will apply to
current recreational fields or only to future lighting.
Ms. McMonigal stated the ordinance will apply to future outdoor lighting. She indicated the
section regarding hours of operation can be changed by the City Council and noted that limiting
the maximum number of hours or days of the week would be difficult to enforce.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the concerns raised by Councilmember Sanger
but was concerned about the City mandating the maximum number of hours or days of the week
and mandating that a low level lighting system be installed at every location.
Councilmember Spano suggested that landscaping be noted as an option for screening lighting
from neighbors.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to hold a public hearing on the outdoor
lighting ordinance at the July 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting.
4. Project Update – Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and proposed final layout of the project. He indicated that
Mn/DOT has revised the layout by adding a high occupancy vehicle lane to the on-ramp onto
Highway 100 northbound from Minnetonka Boulevard. He presented Council with a copy of the
sign-in sheets from the public meetings which include resident comments.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of July 9, 2012
Ms. Crockett advised that the noise wall along the northbound on-ramp from Minnetonka
Boulevard to Highway 100 has been moved closer to the ramp similar to the earlier concept.
Mayor Jacobs asked if residents on Toledo Avenue will receive a formal letter from Mn/DOT
confirming that their homes will not be taken as part of the reconstruction project.
Ms. Crockett explained that Mn/DOT has to request Municipal Consent in order to pursue right-
of-way acquisition and as the project moves forward, Mn/DOT will identify right-of-way
takings. She stated the properties on Toledo Avenue will not be identified in the Municipal
Consent process and she asked if this would be sufficient.
Councilmember Sanger stated the property owners on Toledo Avenue need something in plain
English that states Mn/DOT will not be taking their house, contingent on the City granting
Municipal Consent.
Ms. Crockett advised that Mn/DOT will be sending a formal notice in July requesting Municipal
Consent and the City has 15 days to set a public hearing which must be held within 30 days of
Mn/DOT’s formal notice. She stated once the public hearing is held, Mn/DOT must be informed
within 90 days of the City’s decision regarding Municipal Consent.
Mr. Harmening agreed to work with Ms. Crockett regarding a letter from Mn/DOT to the
property owners on Toledo Avenue.
Mr. Rardin stated that the City has made it clear to Mn/DOT that both bridges should not be shut
down at the same time and staff will continue to work closely with Mn/DOT on the bridge closures.
It was the consensus of the City Council to pursue public art in this project.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity advised that the City will host a meeting on July 17th to present the
storm water management annual reports and the meeting will include a discussion of many of the
items Council has been discussing related to storm water management.
Mr. Harmening agreed to have the July 17th meeting recorded for webcast.
Councilmember Ross asked if the purchase price for the Eliot School site was contingent upon
the developer getting the plans approved.
Mr. Harmening advised that any purchase agreement that a developer enters into requires City
approval and stated the purchase agreement likely contains a provision that if the City turns
down the proposed development, the developer is not obligated to purchase the site.
Councilmember Ross referenced a recent news story about several adult playgrounds being built
in New York that provide a place for adults to exercise. She felt this might be worth pursuing by
the City.
Mr. Harmening agreed that Council could discuss this further in the context of the capital
improvement plan.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of July 9, 2012
Mr. Harmening discussed the City’s delegation agreement with the State of Minnesota related to
the environmental health program which has been run by the City on behalf of the State for a
number of years.
Councilmember Hallfin stated the issue regarding beekeeping will be coming back to Council in
the near future and encouraged Council to observe a beekeeping operation.
Councilmember Sanger requested information regarding the Outstanding Citizen Award program
and whether changes are proposed to the program.
Mr. Harmening advised that the task force was uncomfortable with selecting the award recipients
because the task force felt the criteria needed to be tightened up.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that the task force be asked to make suggestions on the criteria and
provide input to Council.
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Eliot School Redevelopment Site
7. National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
8. Oak Hill II Office Building Project Update
9. Outstanding Citizen Award
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 16, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano (arrived at 6:39 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City
Engineer (Mr. Brink), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and several exhibits associated with the proposed
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan. He advised that the plan highlights those
streets where parking would need to be restricted in order to install Bike Lanes and staff suggests
leaving these in the plan to allow the public to comment on possible parking restrictions. He
stated that General Obligation bonds are proposed to finance the plan and noted that the City
may wish to pay for the proposed Neighborhood sidewalks instead of assessing residents for this
cost. He discussed the exhibit regarding expected issues and concerns as well as the Guiding
Principles and Communications Plan. He indicated the City would like to see sidewalks six feet
wide with at least a one-foot clearance on each side to make it easier to maintain the sidewalks;
and, to reduce as much as possible the amount of swerving around trees. He noted that the
Communications Plan was developed using a three-phase approach with the tagline “Connect the
Park.” He added meeting dates have not yet been set but are anticipated to be held in September
or October.
Councilmember Mavity expressed support for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System
Implementation Plan. She requested that the City publish the entire timeline for this project so
residents know when they can provide input. She stated it was not entirely clear how the City
will gather information and input from residents and requested that the City make sure the
process for gathering resident input is completed in a fair, structured, and transparent way. She
suggested using the City’s website for this purpose.
Mr. Rardin indicated that Mr. Brink will be facilitating the process for input and stated the City
will maintain detailed comments from residents.
Councilmember Sanger expressed support for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation
Plan and agreed with Councilmember Mavity’s comments regarding the process for gathering
resident input. She stated the plan outlines five roads where parking may be restricted and felt
the City should not be making decisions regarding these roads based solely on this plan, e.g.,
Ottawa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and CSAH 25. She stated that Council has
discussed the issues with Ottawa Avenue and indicated she would prefer to look at that segment
in conjunction with all the other issues of traffic congestion and access and not simply whether to
impose parking restrictions in this area. She requested that the list of expected issues and
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of July 16, 2012
concerns include the issue of residents with underground sprinklers who may be impacted by
construction.
Councilmember Ross requested the City make sure the proposed sidewalks are ADA compliant.
She asked if there was room along Cedar Lake Road to construct sidewalks further toward the
street or narrow the street to install the walks in order to reduce the amount of impact to
properties along Cedar Lake Road.
Mr. Rardin stated that Cedar Lake Road is an MSA street and the City has to comply with certain
State standards.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the Communications Plan include information about the
proper location for planting trees on boulevards.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the City also remind residents they should not plant trees
under power lines.
Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding the proposed financing plan.
Mr. Harmening advised the City would not issue General Obligation bonds for the project on a
yearly basis but would issue the bonds in large amounts, e.g., every three years. He added the
City could also piggyback onto another bond issue to save costs. He indicated once the public
process and timeline are complete, the City will outline the financing plan in greater detail.
Councilmember Ross asked if the County will reimburse the City for any of its costs associated
with improvements to county roads.
Mr. Rardin stated the City can ask the County to reimburse some of its costs and noted the
County has a complete streets philosophy.
It was the consensus of the City Council to not change the proposed Bike Lanes to Bikeways at
this time and to allow for that possibility to occur during the public input process.
It was also the consensus of the City Council to support the recommended financing plan.
It was also the consensus of the City Council to have the City pay for construction of the
Neighborhood sidewalks proposed in the plan and not require adjacent residents to pay for the
construction of these Neighborhood sidewalks.
It was also the consensus of the City Council to approve the Communications Plan noting the
comments provided by Council in its discussion this evening.
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 16, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Organizational
Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Inspection Services
Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Brenda Nelson’s Years of Service
Mayor Jacobs presented a certificate of appreciation to Brenda Nelson for her years of
service to the City’s technology department.
2b. Meadowbrook Collaborative Awareness Month Proclamation – August 2012
Mayor Jacobs stated the Meadowbrook Collaborative was established in 1993 to address
quality of life issues in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. He expressed the City
Council’s appreciation to Linda Trummer for her dedicated efforts and recited the
Proclamation recognizing the Meadowbrook Collaborative and proclaiming August 2012
as Meadowbrook Collaborative Awareness Month.
Ms. Linda Trummer presented Mayor Jacobs with brochures and flyers regarding the
Meadowbrook Collaborative to increase awareness about the Collaborative throughout
the community.
2c. Outstanding Citizen Award Recognition
Mayor Jacobs explained that one of the hallmarks of St. Louis Park is its spirit of
volunteerism to make the community a better place and the Outstanding Citizen Award
program provides an opportunity for the community to thank some of the people who
have done remarkable things in the City. He then presented Outstanding Citizen Awards
to Ann Thomas, Bob Ramsey, and Todd Brewer.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
Mayor Jacobs recessed the City Council meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:58 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2012
Councilmember Ross requested that the fifth paragraph on page 7 be revised to state
“Councilmember Ross advised that a resident from Hamilton House recently contacted
her expressing concern about the number of residents who smoke in their apartments and
its impact on residents non-smokers as the smoke travels through the vents. She stated
the resident wants to know if there is anything the City can do.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2012
Councilmember Mavity requested that the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 3
be revised to state “Councilmember Mavity indicated the remeander of Minnehaha Creek
is currently underway and noted that in the past, it worked to straighten the creek was
straightened to accomplish the goal of a functional waterway, but the straightening did
not accomplish the intended environmental goals work for the natural flow of the creek,
resulting in the remeander.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2012
Councilmember Ross requested that that the sixth full paragraph on page 8 be revised to
state “Councilmember Ross agreed and stated she felt Council should further study the
issue before making any changes to decisions regarding the ordinance.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-086 designating 2012 polling places and appointing
election judges for the August 14, 2012 State Primary Election and the November 6,
2012 State General Election.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-087 allowing Mayor and Councilmembers to use the City
fitness facility at Fire Station 1 during their term in office.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
4c. Appoint the following people to the time limited Environment/Sustainability Task
Force as determined by the City Council at its June 25 study session: Kandi Arries,
Timothy Brausen, Judy Chucker, Andrew Emanuele, Lisa Genis, Terry Gips, Tom
Hillstrom, Ellen Lipschultz, Susan Melbye, Rick Person, Amy Peterson, Eric Schultz,
Brian Shekleton, Kelly Spors, and Paul Zeigle.
4d. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2415-12 approving Changes to
Chapter 8 regarding Businesses and Licenses and Chapter 12 for Nuisance
Abatement and Assessment.
4e. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2416-12 to approve changes to
Chapter 4 and Chapter 12 of the City Code relating to the feeding of wildlife, and to
approve ordinance summary and authorize publication.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-088 approving acceptance of monetary donations from
friends at Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of Jim Lanenberg and Jane
Grimsrud in the amount of $133 to purchase and plant shrubs by the pond area at
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 12-089 approving acceptance of monetary donations from the
Family and Friends of Anne Goldberg in the amount of $646 for Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-090 authorizing final payment in the amount of $20,282.06
and accepting work for the Taft Storm Water Lift Station with Northdale
Construction Company Project No. 2007-2400, City Contract No. 139-11.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 12-091 authorizing final payment in the amount of $8,559.13
and accepting work for Water Project – Well Redevelopment (SLP 14) with Keys
Well Drilling Company Project No. 2011-1401, City Contract No. 121-11.
4j. This item was moved to 8d.
4k. Designate Hardrives, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a
contract with the firm in the amount of $436,634.50 for the Traffic Signal Project –
Park Center Boulevard at Park Summit, Project No. 2012-1306.
4l. Enter in to a Public Improvement Agreement with Target Corporation for the Traffic
Signal Project – Park Center Boulevard at Park Summit, Project No. 2012-1306.
4m. Approve Consultant Contract for construction administration services and traffic
signal timing for Traffic Signal Project – Park Center Blvd at Park Summit, Project
No. 2012-1306.
4n. Adopt Resolution No. 12-092 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 2924 Ottawa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 31-
029-24-34-0096.
4o. Adopt Resolution No. 12-093 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
water service line at 1464 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – PID 05-117-21-
43-0041.
4p. Adopt Resolution No. 12-094 accepting donations received from the following
businesses during the 2012 Fire Department Grand Opening and Open House:
• Northland Aluminum $300.00 Check
• Rainbow Foods $50.00 Gift Card
• Cub Foods $200.00 Gift Card
• Sam’s Club $100.00 Gift Card
• Costco $50.00 Gift Card
4q. Adopt Resolution No. 12-095 granting approval for the Preliminary and Final Plat of
Medley Row.
4r. Adopt Resolution No. 12-096 rescinding Resolution 91-146 relating to a previous
use of the Highway 7 Corporate Center site at 7003 West Lake Street.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
4s. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Frank Lundberg
American Legion Post 282, 5605 36th St. W. in St. Louis Park for an event to be held
on August 4, 2012, in the parking lot at the American Legion.
4t. Adopt Resolution No. 12-097 authorizing the installation of permit parking
restrictions along both sides of France Avenue from 3328 France Avenue to W. 34th
Street.
4u. Adopt Resolution No. 12-098 in support of The Southwest Twin Cities Yellow
Ribbon Coalition.
4v. Adopt Resolution No. 12-099 presenting Bob Ramsey, Ann Thomas and Todd
Brewer with a St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award.
4w. Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License
Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
• Resolution No. 12-100 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May
18, 2012, at El Patron Mexican Cuisine, 8140 Hwy. 7.
• Resolution No. 12-101 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May
18, 2012, at Wok in the Park, 3005 Utah Ave. So.
• Resolution No. 12-102 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May
30, 2012, at Grand City Buffet, Inc., 8912 Hwy 7.
• Resolution No. 12-103 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on May
30, 2012, at Pei Wei Asian Diner, 5330 Cedar Lake Rd., Suite 600
4x. Adopt Resolution No. 12-104 accepting the work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $18,272.71 for the City Hall Garage Roof Replacement Project No.
2009-1700.
4y. Adopt Resolution No. 12-105 ordering the abatement of the hazardous building
located at 2915 Ottawa Avenue South.
4z. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 17, 2012.
4aa. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2012.
4bb. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Ross requested that Consent Calendar item #4j be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item #4j to the Regular Agenda as item #8d; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Off-Sale Liquor License – Liquor Boy, Inc.
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and explained the City received an application from
Liquor Boy, Inc., for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license located at 5620 Park Place
Boulevard. She stated John Wolf is the sole owner and plans to open in late September.
She added Mr. Wolf also owns Chicago Lake Liquors in Minneapolis.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger noted a typographical error with respect to the license term
through March 1, 2012 and stated this should read March 1, 2013.
Ms. Stroth agreed to correct the license term through March 1, 2013.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve
an off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Liquor Boy, Inc., located at 5620 Park Place
Boulevard with the license term through March 1, 2013.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Commence Eminent Domain Action for Public Purposes – Highway 7 /
Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project. Resolution No. 12-106
Mr. Olson presented the staff report and explained that the project will impact ten parcels
owned by the City and seven privately owned parcels. He stated Parcel 1 is owned by
Naegele Outdoor Advertising and is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection;
the acquisition affects the billboard, which will need to be removed or relocated. He
stated Parcel 4 is owned by 7201 Lake LLC and houses Cardinal Glass and Odds and
Ends Furniture Outlet; the acquisition includes a small taking on the corner requiring the
property owner to close two of the four entrances located nearest to the intersection. He
noted that two remaining access points will remain further down the road. He stated
Parcel 5 is owned by Sam’s Real Estate Business Trust and contains Sam’s Club; the
acquisition includes a narrow strip of land needed along the west side and will facilitate
relocation of the sidewalk closer to the building since the road shifts further to the east in
this area. He stated Parcel 9 is owned by Clear Channel and is located in the northeast
quadrant; a permanent easement is needed for the ponding area and the acquisition will
require that the billboard be removed or relocated. He stated Parcel 12 is owned by R&N
Real Estate and contains the Oak Hill office building; the acquisition partially impacts the
corner nearest Walker and Louisiana and will require removing the water treatment pond
for construction of the road. He noted the City will handle this parcel’s storm water after
completion of the project. He stated Parcel 14 is owned by MSP SLP Apartments LLC
and contains the Louisiana Oaks Apartments; the acquisition will impact the northeast
and southeast corners to allow for the roundabout construction and entrance ramp to the
highway. He stated Parcel 15 is owned by St. Louis Park Housing Partners; the City
needs a temporary easement since the frontage road will shift slightly closer to their
property but remain in the existing right-of-way. He advised the City is in the process of
finishing appraisals and will move into acquisition activities in late July. He also
presented the project schedule and stated that construction is scheduled to commence in
May/June 2013.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the City’s conversations
with property owners and feedback received to date.
Mr. Olson explained the City has had conversations with the owners of the two apartment
complexes and Sam’s Club and all property owners have been invited to all of the open
houses. He stated the City has received no response from the owners of Cardinal Glass
or the owners of the Oak Hill complex. He added that Clear Channel and Naegle have
not attended any of the public meetings.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-106 Authorizing Condemnation of Land for Public Purposes.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Project Report: Roadway/Trail Improvement - Beltline Blvd at Regional
Trail Crossing. Resolution No. 12-107
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and stated that on May 7, 2012, Council directed staff
to move forward with widening Beltline Boulevard, putting in a wider median and
realigning the trail crossings. He presented an aerial photo of the current crossing as well
as a diagram depicting the proposed changes that will provide trail users with a safer
crossing. He presented the proposed schedule noting that construction would begin on
September 4, 2012, with construction complete in November 2012. He stated the
estimated cost to complete the project is $150,000 and funding would come from the
General Fund, Development Fund, and possibly MSA funds. He added a request has
been submitted to Three Rivers Park District seeking a contribution for the project and
the Three Rivers Board will consider the City’s request this week.
Mr. Dave Carlson, 7006 West 23rd Street, appeared before the City Council and stated he
has been a member of the Hennepin County Bike Advisory Commission since 1989. He
stated the Bike Advisory Commission studies trail crossings from both a trail user
perspective as well as a transportation perspective. He stated he has lobbied for a
different design on Beltline Boulevard that would include a two-lane design with a center
turn lane. He indicated this type of design would still have a 12’ median and would serve
to slow traffic. He noted the County is using this type of design throughout the County,
e.g., Cedar Lake Road west of 169, and it has worked well to provide a safer crossing for
trail users. He stated if the City used this type of design, the cost may be less than
estimated and this type of interim design may be better suited for this area.
Councilmember Ross stated this trail crossing has been a dilemma for Council and
indicated it would have been helpful to have heard from Mr. Carlson and/or Three Rivers
Park District sooner in this process because Council is now being asked to make a
decision after months of studying the issue. She agreed that a grade separated crossing
was the only workable solution and the proposed changes represent only a temporary fix.
Mr. Harmening stated that the option of constructing a two lane divided roadway was
discussed by Council in May and staff suggested this option should be considered only as
a temporary or pilot approach because of potential traffic issues; Council decided not to
pursue that option.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
Ms. Hannah Barker appeared before the City Council and stated she lives near the
Wooddale crossing. She encouraged the City to keep the stop sign at this crossing and
stated safety is a significant issue at the Wooddale crossing. She expressed concern
about the problems with traffic and felt if Beltline goes down to one lane, it will cause
more problems. She stated she would like the trail users to obey the traffic stop so traffic
can keep moving through this area.
Ms. Anna Tift appeared before the City Council and stated the trail crossings are creating
confusion. She requested clarification regarding the Wooddale and Beltline crosswalks.
Councilmember Mavity stated the crossing at Wooddale is marked but not at Beltline.
Ms. Tift stated that consistency is needed on the trails because some of the crossings are
marked while others are not marked and some people stop at the crossings while others
do not stop. She suggested using some type of campaign to educate people regarding the
crossings.
Mayor Jacobs agreed the trail crossings are not consistent and the City has been trying to
work with Three Rivers on this issue.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council has been frustrated about this crossing for a
long time and Council has had significant discussions about safety for trail users and
drivers as well as the need for clarity and consistency on the trail crossings. She stated
the City is trying to accommodate a wide range of users and the high volume of traffic in
this area adds a layer of complexity to an issue that needs to be resolved quickly. She
indicated that cost is also an issue and building a grade separated crossing would be in the
range of $1 million. She noted there is no guarantee that a grade separated crossing
would have to be torn down in three to five years once light rail comes through. She
indicated the City has tried narrowing the roadway at Wooddale and this has worked to
some extent, but the key problem at Beltline is that drivers do not know what to do
because the crossing is not a crosswalk. She felt that narrowing the roadway represents
one of the key ways to make this crossing safer. She stated she appreciated seeing the
wider median but felt the City could do better for less money with a temporary fix.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a
Resolution directing the City to conduct a preliminary pilot of Option 4 (constructing a
two-lane divided roadway with a center turn lane and wide median) and directing staff to
report back to the City Council regarding impacts on traffic.
Councilmember Sanger stated the Beltline crossing has eluded a good solution despite
several years of discussion. She stated one of the main problems causing so much
confusion and frustration is that drivers do not know whether to stop at the crossing. She
stated the City previously distributed information that said drivers should not stop if
someone was in the crossing and there is confusion between jurisdictions. She added
there is a line of sight problem for cars coming up in the middle lanes because these
drivers cannot see if someone is in the crossing and she felt the crossing needs to have
some way of cueing drivers that someone is in the crossing. She stated the issue of
consistency across jurisdictions needs to be resolved and the confusion is made worse
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 8
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
because of the lack of a painted crosswalk at Beltline. She did not believe the proposed
solution would address these problems or alleviate the confusion and felt the best way to
resolve this was to reduce the roadway to one lane in each direction at least on a
temporary basis. She stated if this solution does not work, the City can revert to a
mixture of the other two options to widen the median and to add a painted crosswalk and
some kind of light system that would signal drivers. She felt if Council was unwilling to
adopt a two-stage solution, the City would be squandering money as well as an
opportunity to minimize the safety hazards for both drivers and trail users. She also
urged the City to improve its education of drivers and trail users. She reminded Council
of its discussion last week approving the Design Guidelines for the Beltline light rail
station, which state that the Beltline area should evolve into a walk/bike friendly area to
get to the future Beltline transit station. She stated the Design Guidelines also state that
pedestrians and bicyclists should receive the highest priority near the Beltline transit
station. She stated the City needs to be consistent with what it does with the Beltline trail
crossing together with the vision for this entire area and felt that having a crossing with
no lights, no crosswalk, and no cues for drivers does not further the goals for this area.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that the proposed changes will require trail
users to stop and that there will be no lines on the pavement for cars indicating a
crosswalk. She asked if this meant that motorized vehicles have the right of way and
people using the trail need to stop/yield and wait until it is safe to cross. She also asked if
trail users have the right of way if there is a marked crossing.
Mr. Brink replied that trail users have the right of way only if there is a marked crossing.
Councilmember Mavity stated one of the challenges with having a striped crossing is that
the crossing is mid-block which is not typically done because cars are not expecting it
and you do not want trail users to think they can automatically go across at mid-block.
She stated her motion directs the City to install a two-lane roadway with a turn lane but
does not include a striped crosswalk so trail users would still be required to stop.
Councilmember Ross stated that safety is the City’s priority and the City’s consultants
have indicated the proposal on the table tonight represents the best option in terms of
safety.
The motion failed 2-5 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Hallfin, Ross, Santa, and
Spano opposed).
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-107 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing the Beltline Boulevard
Regional Trail Crossing Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and
Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Beltline Boulevard Regional Trail Crossing
Improvements.
The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger opposed).
8c. Preliminary and Final Plat – Eldridge Fifth Addition (Application #12-15-S).
Resolution No. 12-108
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 9
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2012
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained the property at 9019 Cedar Lake
Road is owned by the City and was included in the excess land process in 2005. He
stated the property is 14.4 acres and the property would be subdivided into two lots with
Lot 2 sold for development of a single house. He indicated that Lot 1 would remain City
property and no changes are proposed to this site. He stated the applicant’s proposed
building on the site would meet all setbacks and presented a concept building pad and
driveway prepared by the applicant. He stated a neighborhood meeting was held June 11,
2012, and no objections were raised. He noted that Westwood Church has a parking lot
driveway that encroaches upon this property and the driveway will need to be relocated at
their expense but this will be coordinated with the developer to save costs.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-108 Giving Approval for Preliminary and Final Plat of Eldridge Fifth
Addition.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Final Payment Resolution – Contract 112-11 Pearson Brothers, Inc. - Project
No. 2011-0001. Resolution No. 12-109
Councilmember Ross explained she attended a block captain picnic last week and this
item was brought up based on concerns by residents about whether there would be any
additional cost to them due to the contractor having to correct problems created with the
last sealcoat due to heavy rains. She stated she told the residents she would verify that
they would not be required to pay any additional sums for this work and she has now
confirmed with staff that there will be no additional cost to residents for this sealcoating.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-109 Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of $10,435.16 for the
2011 City Sealcoat Project with Pearson Brothers, Inc., Accepting Work on Contract
Sealcoating – City Project No. 2011-0001, Contract No. 112-11.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents that National Night Out will be held on August 7th. He
stated residents can contact their neighborhood associations or City Hall with questions.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Authorize Encroachment Agreement at 9209 Cedar Lake Road
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to authorize the execution of an encroachment agreement for grading on City property
next to 9209 Cedar Lake Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to authorize an encroachment agreement as noted in this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Greg Vargas owns the house at 9209 Cedar Lake Road. He has plans to tear down the
existing home and build a new home in its place. However, the grade on his property and the
city property to the east is steep, and Mr. Vargas would like to place some fill to provide a level
area to build the new home. This would require some grading onto the city property to provide a
gentle slope from the level area to the existing grade (see map). Mr. Vargas does not plan on
extending the new home or any structures onto city property, and plans to use native vegetation
to restore the disturbed area. The City’s Land Use Policy allows this type of private use of
public land with an encroachment agreement. This encroachment agreement, drafted by the City
Attorney, releases the City from any liability and allows the City to terminate the agreement at
any time with 90 days’ notice. The agreement will be recorded against the property and run with
the land. All costs of construction, future maintenance, relocation or removal would be borne by
the property owner. Approval of the encroachment agreement will be subject to verification that
there is no interference with private or public utilities.
Staff has reviewed the application and site plan and finds that there is no conflicting use or
negative impact to the City property in the present or future. The existing storm sewer on this
site already has a drainage and utility easement on it, and will not be impacted by the grading.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of recording this encroachment agreement with Hennepin County will be covered by
the permit fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Authorize Encroachment Agreement at 9209 Cedar Lake Road
Proposed Grading at 9209 Cedar Lake Road
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement No. 94808 with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for Project No 2004-1700, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to $GoSW 5esolution amending Cooperative Agreement No. 94808 with Mn/DOT
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Improvement, Project No. 2004-1700.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to receive additional funding from Mn/DOT for the construction of
Project No 2004-1700, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project?
BACKGROUND:
Original Agreement
On August 3, 2009, the City Council approved entering into a cooperative agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange
Project. Essentially, the agreement provided for the following:
1. Assigning of Project Funding Obligations. The agreement included provisions for
Mn/DOT providing construction engineering services, and for financial obligations,
including Mn/DOT acting as the City’s agent for the distribution of federal stimulus
funds to the City.
2. Responsibilities and Obligations During Construction. The Agreement outlined
respective obligations and responsibilities of both the State and the City during the course
of construction, including inspections, contract management, contract payments, and
other administrative tasks required during construction.
3. Responsibilities and Obligations After Construction. With the construction of new
infrastructure, including a bridge, ramps, frontage roads, underground utilities, etc., the
Agreement outlined and described the long-term ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for both the City and Mn/DOT.
Amendment No. 1
During the course of construction, various additional costs were incurred as a result of
unforeseen conditions. Some of the changes and increased costs involved contaminated material
remediation and air quality monitoring, abandoned pedestrian tunnel removal, temporary access
to Highway 7, additional mainline and ramp barriers due to modified construction staging,
restoration activities associated with the State government shutdown, and additional construction
engineering performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway 7. These changes resulted in
total increased project costs of $660,362.16 which were dealt with via 36 Work Orders, 14
Change Orders, and 3 Supplemental Agreements.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
As a result of these changes and increased costs, staff requested additional funding participation
by Mn/DOT. After lengthy negotiations, Mn/DOT has agreed to provide $315,683 of additional
funds towards this project. Amendment No. 1, attached to this report, prepared by Mn/DOT
revises and updates the funding obligations of Mn/DOT. The City Attorney has reviewed the
Amendment and has no comments or concerns.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This amendment provides additional state funding in the amount of $315,683 towards this
project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
Attachments: Resolution
Amendment No. 1
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park enter into Amendment No. 1 to
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 94808 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for
the following purposes:
To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State’s share of the costs of contaminated
material remediation and air quality monitoring, abandoned pedestrian tunnel removal,
temporary access to Highway 7, additional mainline and ramp barriers due to modified
construction staging, restoration due to a State government shutdown, and associated
construction engineering performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway 7 from 1680
feet west of Wooddale Avenue to 1770 feet east of Wooddale Avenue within the corporate City
limits under State Project No. 2706-222.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of St. Louis Park at an authorized meeting held on August 6, 2012, as shown by the
minutes of the meeting of my possession.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
___________________________________
Jeffery W. Jacobs, Mayor
___________________________________
Tom Harmening, City Manager
Attest:
__________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 4
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 5
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 6
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 7
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 8
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Co-op Agreement w/ MnDOT for Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange ProjectPage 9
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve Mn/DOT Limited Use Permit for Minnetonka Boulevard Trail Improvement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for Minnetonka Boulevard trail improvements.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to extend our existing Minnetonka Boulevard trail west to the City
limits (300 feet) to connect into the City of Minnetonka?
BACKGROUND:
The City of Minnetonka has developed plans for the construction of an off-road trail along the
south side of Minnetonka Boulevard from a point about ½ mile west of Highway 169, easterly to
Highway 169, extending under the bridge, and connecting to an existing trail recently completed
by St. Louis Park that terminates at the northbound Highway 169 off-ramp to Minnetonka
Boulevard. Minnetonka anticipates starting construction this fall.
Mn/DOT has informed the City of Minnetonka that a limited use permit is required from both
cities to install the trail. This permit essentially codifies the Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis
Park as owners / maintainers for the portions of trail within their respective jurisdictions and
releases Mn/DOT from that obligation. In summary, St. Louis Park would be responsible for the
portion of trail between the bridge and the ramp. The improvement proposed by the City of
Minnetonka is consistent with the City of St. Louis Park’s long term trail plan and makes a
continuous trail link to the west.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None immediately or in the short term. However, annual routine trail maintenance costs will
increase a minimal amount due to this additional 300 feet of new trail in our city. The City
already performs this routine maintenance (snow removal, sweeping, crack filling, etc.) adjacent
to this location. Eventually, the city will need to fund heavier maintenance (overlay or
replacement) activities or costs associated with this additional segment of trail.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Approve Mn/DOT Limited Use Permit for Minnetonka Blvd Trail Improvement Project
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A LIMITED USE PERMIT
WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR THE MINNETONKA BOULEVARD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, The City of Minnetonka has accepted plans and specifications for the
Minnetonka Boulevard trail improvements; and
WHEREAS, The approved plans include trail improvements that are located within the
Minnesota Department of Transportation’s right-of-way and within the boundaries of the City of
Minnetonka and the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park shall operate and maintain the trail within its
jurisdiction in accordance with the Limited Use Permit granted by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to
execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, the Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 33-11 with Friedges Landscaping, Inc.- Project No. 20110050
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$36,609.80 for the Redevelopment of Northside Park, Contract No. 33-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on February 24, 2011 for the 2011 Northside Park Reconstruction project.
The City Council subsequently awarded a contract to Friedges Landscaping, Inc. on March 21,
2011 in the amount of $711,170.93.
The project involved relocating and reconstructing the parking lot; adding curb and gutter to
accommodate storm water runoff; constructing sediment pond(s) in partnership with the fire
station project for environmental and watershed issues; updating the concession stand building;
relocating and reconstructing the two existing ball fields; construct an additional new youth size
ball field; eliminating the two practice ball fields; installing an irrigation system; redesigning and
developing green space; re-landscaping the park; replacing all ball field amenities (bleachers,
scoreboards, dugouts, etc.); relocating current play structure; removing outdoor skating area;
constructing a new storage building; and including green building technology where possible.
The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$732,195.93. The final contract amount did increase due to necessary changes related to storm
water and our miscellaneous items.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was part of the Council approved 2011 CIP program and was funded in part through
the Park Improvement Fund. The original budget and engineers estimate for the project was
$1,000,000 (including construction, design etc), with $600,000 from the Park Improvement Fund
and $400,000 from the Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with the Vision St. Louis Park and the adopted Strategic Direction that
states “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 33-11 w/ Friedges Landscaping - Project No. 20110050
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF NORTHSIDE PARK
CITY PROJECT NO. 20110050
CONTRACT NO. 33-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated March 22, 2011, Friedges Landscaping, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the redevelopment of Northside Park per Contract No. 33-11.
2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed
to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $711,170.93
Parking Lot Soil Correction $2,000.00
Storm Water Plan Changes $18,050.00
Sand in place of Aggregate $0
Concrete Pad Addition $975.00
Previous Payments $695,586.13
Balance Due $36,609.80
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Westwood Room, St. Louis Park City Hall
St. Louis Park, MN
Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Justin Kaufman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Suzanne Metzger
STAFF PRESENT: Brian Swanson, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker,
Teresa Schlegel
1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for April, 2012
The Board minutes of April 9, 2012 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Fee Accounting – Financial Services Update
Ms. Schnitker explained that after reviewing proposals and conducting telephone
interviews with two fee accounting firms, the HA plans to negotiate and enter into
a two-year contract with a 60-day termination clause with C. Naber & Associates,
effective July 1, 2012, to provide fee accounting services to the HA, at an annual
cost of approximately $10,000. Brian Swanson, City Controller, has been
involved in all of the discussions, interviews and analysis of the fee accounting
proposals.
b. Review of City Housing Goals: Report to City Council
Ms. Schnitker provided a recap of the discussion that was held between City
Council and the HA Board at the April 9th Study Session, and discussed some of
the next steps to address the direction provided by the Council, including
conducting a comprehensive housing needs assessment of the community to
determine how much affordable housing St. Louis Park requires. Commissioner
DuFour requested that all levels of housing in the City be looked at, and
suggested that the Southwest Light Rail Transit housing studies may be utilized.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2012
2
In addition, staff has tentatively scheduled a two-hour workshop presented by
Urban Land Institute, for Monday, September 10th at 7:00 p.m. The workshop is
entitled, “Navigating the New Normal”; invitees include City Council and
Planning Commission members and the Housing Authority Board.
c. Joint Powers Agreement, Resolution No. 617
Ms. Schlegel explained the HA’s desire to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement
with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension, to utilize the systems and tools available through the State’s
criminal justice data communications network, to determine applicant eligibility
for participation in its rental assistance programs. Commissioner DuFour moved
to approve Resolution No. 617, Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis
Park to enter into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota, Joint Powers
Agreement. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion; the motion passed 2-0.
Commissioner Kaufman abstained from voting.
d. Proclamation Honoring Boards and Commissions Volunteers
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – May and June, 2012
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – May and June, 2012
2. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
Commissioner Courtney tabled discussion on smoking inside Public Housing apartments
until the July Board meeting.
9. Adjournment
Commissioner DuFour moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Kaufman
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 20, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Richard Person, Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Scott Brink,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2012
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of May 16,
2012. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 3-0-1 (Robertson abstained).
3. Public Hearings
A. Preliminary and Final Plat – Eldridge 5th Addition
Location: 9019 Cedar Lake Road S.
Applicant: Ridge Creek Custom Homes
Case No.: 12-15-S
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the parcel is
essentially vacant and fronts the road in-between Flag. Ave. and Westwood Church. He
noted the proposed subdivision would divide the lot into two properties. Lot 2 would be
sold to the developer for purposes of a single family home construction and the Lot 1 is
City-owned with no proposed changes at this time.
Mr. Walther explained why a great deal of the subject property is unbuildable; primarily
related to Hannon Lake, wetlands, and drainage and utility easements.
Mr. Walther spoke about one new driveway which would be added onto Cedar Lake
Road. He noted that the church driveway encroachment will need to be removed from
Lot 2.
Mr. Walther stated that the application meets all requirements.
Commissioner Robertson stated that Lot 1 will be a very odd configuration. He asked why
so much of the lake is included in Lot 2. He asked why the plat couldn’t be three lots.
Mr. Walther responded that Hannon Lake is a non-meandered lake and it is typical for the
lots to extend out into the lake and out to the center of the lake. The proposed Lot 1 has
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2012
the shape it does in order to maintain access to a street and meet subdivision
requirements.
Commissioner Morris noted that the plat signature page shows the City of Golden Valley
rather than St. Louis Park.
Mr. Walther said that error will be corrected prior to the City Council meeting.
Commissioner Morris asked if the city was an applicant for the plat.
Mr. Walther stated that the developer has applied for the plat. There is a purchase
agreement for Lot 2 and the City is essentially a consenting party to the application.
Commissioner Morris stated in his career he had never processed a water plat. He asked
if that portion of the lake had become tax forfeited.
Mr. Walther said he didn’t know if was acquired through tax forfeit. He discussed the
excess land public process studying 19 sites in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Morris had questions about shoreline tax forfeited property. He said
typically the DNR maintains an access easement or shoreline easement.
Mr. Walther stated that the DNR received a copy of the plat application and had no
comments. The City Attorney ordered a title search and verified that the City does have
clear title to the property. He added that Hannon Lake is a DNR protected public water
and is considered public water up to the ordinary high water level.
Commissioner Robertson asked if this would be the only development that would occur
on Lots 1 and 2 or is Lot 2 still open for further development on the upland property.
Mr. Walther said Lot 2 has only enough width for one lot. Lot 1 could see additional
development in the future but the City intends to hold it indefinitely. One additional
single family house on the western side of the upland would likely be the maximum
development on the site.
The applicant, Rob Eldridge of Ridge Creek Custom Homes/AKARE Companies, said
the storm sewer utility that runs through the property made it impossible to construct a
second house.
Chair Kramer asked if the developer had received any negative feedback.
Mr. Eldridge said only four neighbors came to the recent open house. No negative
feedback was received other than concern about the start of construction disturbing
wildlife nests. He said the goal is to begin digging in the fall to avoid that kind of
disturbance. He noted that conversations with the church about the driveway have been
very good. Efforts between construction of the development driveway and the new
church driveway will be coordinated to share costs.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2012
Mr. Walther acknowledged an email received late afternoon on June 20th from Bruce
Levin, 9105 Stanlen Rd. The correspondence was distributed to the Commission just
before the meeting.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, summarized the comments which
included a question about Lot 1 which was raised by Commissioner Robertson and
answered by Mr. Walther earlier. Also mentioned were comments that the house would
be out of character for the neighborhood, one lot would increase traffic in the area, trees
should remain as a visual buffer, comments about the appearance and neighborhood
integrity, and a comment that the developer’s subdivision at 8849 Minnetonka Blvd. was
on small lots. Ms. McMonigal noted that these are fairly large lots.
Steven Kenny, 9200 W. 28th St., asked how run-off to the lake from the west would be
affected.
Mr. Walther explained the drainage outlets. He said the preliminary grading plan is set
up so that a portion of the property will drain directly into the pond and the remainder
will drain into Hannon Lake. It will be limited to the footprint of the house and the
driveway which is a relatively small change to the amount of impervious surface. A silt
fence will surround the entire area disturbed during construction.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing as there was no one else present wishing to
speak.
Commissioner Robertson stated that other than being an odd shaped plat, the application
is very straightforward. He commented that a single house at the site will be very nice
and should be a successful home. He made a motion recommending approval of the
Preliminary and Final Plat of Eldridge 5th Addition, subject to conditions included in the
staff report. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 4-0.
B. Preliminary and Final Plat – Medley Row (Hoigaard Village)
Location: W. 36th St. and Highway 100
Applicant: Medley Row, LLC
Case No.: 12-16-S
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She explained that the plat is for the 22
Medley Row townhomes in the Hoigaard Village development that were previously
approved. The plat is required to clarify ownership of utility infrastructure within the
individual townhomes.
Commissioner Morris asked about the very small five foot jog in each lot.
The applicant, Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development, said the condenser and gas line for
each unit account for the small jog seen on the plat.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2012
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of the
Preliminary and Final Plat, subject to conditions. Commissioner Robertson seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. A study session followed.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period July 7 through July 27, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
90.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
90.00
2,979.89GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE1ST REGENTS BANK
2,979.89
91.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
91.48
1,604.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
1,604.71
912.30GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
912.30
8,067.01GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
8,067.01
7.20WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSACKERMAN, VERLA
7.20
356.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAE2S
356.00
75.56OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
75.56
2,144.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
2,144.00
11.72-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSALLIED PRODUCTS CORP
182.22GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
170.50
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICALPINE DESIGNERS
2,500.00
479.54WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS
479.54
78.74POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.74
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
31.32ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
31.32
16.38-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,750.50SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,734.12
1,656.56TRAFFIC CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,656.56
339.09BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
339.09
798.42AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAQUA-PHIN INC
798.42
2,070.52SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIESAQUATIC RECREATION CO
2,070.52
1,379.28GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
1,379.28
2,850.00POLICE G & A MISC EXPENSEARM SECURITY
2,850.00
241.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS
241.65
154.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
154.80
46.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO PLUS
46.67
1,459.18WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,459.18
.40-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
66.19GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
65.79
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,224.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAWWA
3,224.00
32.03BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH
32.03
12,769.00PE SURVEYS ENGINEERING SERVICESBADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC
2,000.00PE PLANS/SPECS ENGINEERING SERVICES
14,769.00
342.54NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARKER, HANNA
342.54
504.64HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
504.64
60.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEBARTELL, JAN
60.00
74.18-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBARTLEY SALES CO
1,153.18PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,079.00
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEBCA MNJIS SECTION
510.00
1,739.16PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBEBERGS LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
1,739.16
588.13REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
588.13
7,540.00REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBERGERSON CASWELL INC
7,540.00
96.90INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
96.90
320.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCEBOHN WELDING INC
320.00
450.00LA CRT 2010C DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEESBOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
450.002008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT FISCAL AGENT FEES
900.00
114.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
114.00
1,184.18SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
1,184.18
150.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRUUN-BRYANT, MACKENZIE
150.00
7,424.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA COLLECTED BY CITYBUKINGOLTS, JACOB
7,424.00
65.00ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSEBULTEMA, CORY
356.87ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
421.87
125.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBURNET TITLE
125.00
99.20REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCAIN, KAREN
99.20
5,326.68ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
1,396.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,485.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL SERVICES
262.50WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
232.50SEWER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
45.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
8,747.68
2,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCAR PROPERTIES
2,000.00
15.40-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCARDIAC SCIENCE INC
239.40OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
223.99-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,481.99GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,482.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
198.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATCAREER TRACK
198.00
2,731.73IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
413.61DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,145.34
20,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERV
20,000.00
267.99EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
267.99
7,917.77TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
7,917.77
2,520.00CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
2,520.00
194.95FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
275.79PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
19.07WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
38.06NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
1,392.60WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
23.60REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
35.13SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
40.62SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
2,019.82
209.46FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
6,428.97ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
6,638.43
15,460.16EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
15,460.16
1,864.97PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCENTRAL WOOD PRODUCTS
1,864.97
175.92IT G & A TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
104.93COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
39.18E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
320.03
38.83-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCENTURY MANUFACTURING CORP
603.65REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
564.82
350.00DAILY ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUECHILDREN FIRST
350.00
5.71-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCHUX SCREEN PRINTING
148.71WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
143.00
188.37FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
166.94FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
78.76GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
18.17AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
639.35VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
103.59GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
98.76GENERAL REPAIR OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,293.94
2.23-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
65.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.73HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
286.26HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
1,327.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.84COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE
75.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
64.80POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
100.00ASSESSING G & A ADVERTISING
245.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
1,127.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
23.84FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
35.39POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,008.38POLICE G & A TRAINING
891.56POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
85.80ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
200.00Alcohol Underage Enforce Grant OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
213.75DWI ENFORCEMENT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
438.09OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
19.60OPERATIONSCONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS
148.86-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
336.01ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
32.13ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
72.87SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.54SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,448.74SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
638.00SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
88.16ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
540.34WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
122.83JUNIOR NATURALISTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.35REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.00LIFEGUARDINGOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
230.85SEASON PASSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.68TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
486.94TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
1,629.36GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
583.54PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
41.81TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE
12,939.35
2,859.67CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
2,859.67
10,205.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA COLLECTED BY CITYCOHEN, BEVERLY
10,205.00
17,930.14ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
17,930.14
166.95NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
166.95
1,957.10SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
937.32PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
6,950.18ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
185.71STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
10,030.31
129.00OPERATIONSTRAININGCOPPA, RODGER
129.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,578.04CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
1,578.04
221.12POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
221.12
4,120.18SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,537.93SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
493.76SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
545.67SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
405.99SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
802.36SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,905.89
537.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
537.55
143.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
143.00
90.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEDANIELS, LINDSAY
90.00
79.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYDEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC
79.42
35.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDEBOER, MARK
35.00
3,850.89EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENTDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
3,850.89
9,201.62INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
9,201.62
293.35ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
293.35
2,789.15CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDIGITAL PICTURES INC
2,789.15
168.02-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
795.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,975.96ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,602.94
2,485.34POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
2,882.24WATER UTILITY G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
5,367.58
305.60OPERATIONSTRAININGDOBESH, MICHAEL
305.60
22.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDINA REALTY TITLE
22.65
373.75SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
373.75
585.00GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
146.25WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
620.002010B GO REF (03) DEBT SER G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,585.002005A GO IMPROVEMENT BOND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
667.002007A UTIL REV BOND PROJECTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
84.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
184.802010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
333.002007A UTIL REV BOND PROJECTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
571.202010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
540.00REV BONDS 2001B / 2010B REF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,316.25
200.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELECTRIC PUMP INC
200.00
2,402.66GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIELITE EXERCISE EQUIPMENT
2,402.66
1,300.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
1,300.93
200.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENCORE BROKERS
200.00
15.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEERLANSON, LAURA
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
15.00
4,624.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
4,624.00
5,459.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
5,459.18
667.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEEULL'S MANUFACTURING CO
667.86
35,754.79SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
35,754.79
30.25NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEVENSON, PAULA
30.25
359.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
359.13
196.53REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC
196.53
173.62GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
173.62
139.86ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFECHNER, MARTY
139.86
58.19POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
58.19
1,389.91WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
1,389.91
186.17ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
186.17
600.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
600.00
4,990.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFRANKLIN PLUMBING, BENJAMIN
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,990.00
4,080.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEFRATTALONE COMPANIES INC
4,080.00
20.00CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTFROOM, JOHN
20.00
7,942.88REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
15,326.57ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
25,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
48,269.45
288.59REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL PARTS INC
288.59
150.00INSPECTIONS G & A TEMPORARY USEGIERKE, SARAH
150.00
4,260.43EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,260.43
121.89PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGOODIN COMPANY
121.89
1,003.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
1,003.40
438.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAFIX SHOPPE
438.19
15.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEGRAGE, ANDREA
15.00
458.05GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
721.16WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,179.21
1,055.53DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
850.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,905.53
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11.56-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
650.11REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
638.55
345.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
345.25
451.92EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
451.92
960.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONHAGEN, DENNIS
960.00
1,578.95GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHALLBERG ENGINEERING INC
1,578.95
200.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
200.00
199.78BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSHARDACKER, MELANIE
199.78
3,312.05AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
3,312.05
972.56PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
972.56
1,685.84WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
1,685.84
198.60WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
35.52WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
37.48SUMMER GRADE 2-3 GENERAL SUPPLIES
271.60
475.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
475.00
1,879.12POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
705.76OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
202.56OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,787.44
534.38NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,671.21POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
548.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,754.42
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHERBY, PAUL
1,000.00
2,870.13CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO
2,870.13
76.76REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHICKS, JEAN
76.76
125.51COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS GENERAL SUPPLIESHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
125.51
68.38GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
128.39SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
204.34SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
401.11
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHOFF, RICK
1,000.00
25,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHOGAN, BRIAN
25,000.00
142.94GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.15PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
101.98ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.86SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
37.52IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
109.38PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.85BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OFFICE SUPPLIES
25.59BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
108.42BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
45.47REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.25BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
102.58AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
47.90WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.85WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
137.37WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
96.45SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
107.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,256.80
145.41ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
145.41
50.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
50.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
404.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
504.50
350.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
225.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
575.00
150.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
50.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
253.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
453.50
600.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENTHRGREEN
600.00
10.58JUNIOR NATURALISTS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
10.58
73.13REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHUGHES & ERIKA FINKLER, CHRIS
73.13
33.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
33.83
1,620.10EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,620.10
15.47-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSICE SKATING INST AMERICA
240.47REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
225.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
475.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
475.00
27.94REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEINDELCO
27.94
1,375.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATINSIGHT EDGE
1,375.00
2,521.42IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,521.42
54.45POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESINTOXIMETERS INC
54.45
149.34ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJ & F REDDY RENTS
149.34
12.07SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
125.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
137.72
1,542.62IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
1,542.62
475.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESJOURNEYWELL
475.00
553.84EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
553.84
225.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKELVIE, DANIKA
225.00
846.00GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
756.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA LEGAL SERVICES
1,602.00
100.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKEYS 4/4 KIDS
100.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,559.13WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEKEYS WELL DRILLING CO
8,559.13
634.40TENNISOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC
634.40
336.36PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESKRAEMER MINING & MATERIALS INC
336.36
87.91REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRANS, SARAH
87.91
1,064.61REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESKRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC
3,577.61PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
4,642.22
255.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKUBES, JON
255.00
3,226.32POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTKUSTOM SIGNALS INC
3,226.32
176.21WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLAND TITLE
176.21
77.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLANO EQUIPMENT INC
77.57
284.36SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
284.36
2,385.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,385.00
337.15GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
337.15
6,996.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
6,996.00
148.70UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
148.70
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUELEE, JULIE
10.00
102.68INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
102.68
4,507.99PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDILIGHTING HOUSE USA INC
4,507.99
128.38WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLINDNER, ELIZABETH
128.38
1,048.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLOFTNESS SPECIALIZED EQ INC
1,048.80
43,515.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
54,635.40TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
98,150.40
15.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUELORENZEN, MARK
15.00
714.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLUCAS, ERIC
714.00
68.45INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
68.45
1,163.30PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
1,163.30
116.53-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC
4,422.57WATER UTILITY G&A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
4,306.04
60,000.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSMALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP IOLT
60,000.00
70.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMANNING, CATHERINE
70.67
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
177.91SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
413.06SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
590.97
10.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEMATT, KIMBERLY
10.00
100.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAININGMCCARTNEY JR, WILLIAM
100.00
56.85CABLE TV G & A NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENTMCHUGH, JOHN T
56.85
60.79IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
81.62WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
142.41
67.05REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMERCHANT, DAVID & LOIS
67.05
2.16-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETRO FIRE INC
33.53OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTS
31.37
1,271.79POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
1,271.79
327,789.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
1,075.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
292,430.91OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
621,294.91
80.16POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
5,206.09TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,286.25
25.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
57.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
82.24
49.16OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
107.30OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
156.46
162.15PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST PLAYSCAPES INC
162.15
665.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
665.00
495.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
495.00
152.12EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
152.12
1,100.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD
1,100.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
225.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC
500.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
725.00
111.62SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
111.62
5,235.56GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC
39.53WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5,275.09
332.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S League of MN Cities dept'l expMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
332.00
98.00ADULT PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOELLER, STEEN
98.00
231.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
231.63
57.58GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
786.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
27.61GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.07WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
912.36
24,187.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNELSON AUTO CENTER
24,187.88
42.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNELSON, ANGELA
42.50
205.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
205.02
314.47ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
113.81HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
721.52RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
139.55ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
165.06FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
1,028.82POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
411.78OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
840.63INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
376.32ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
493.39PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
235.96PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
375.03ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
343.16PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
112.57ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
235.30WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
2,379.82VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
408.62WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
254.28SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
115.09SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
9,065.18
10,296.74STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGENORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC
9,985.32CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
20,282.06
568.08AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIESNORTHERN AIRE SWIMMING POOLS
568.08
10,944.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA COLLECTED BY CITYO'BRIEN, BERNICE
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,944.00
13.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYO'REILLY AUTO PARTS
13.50
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
10,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOAKWOOD PARTNERS
10,000.00
286.95WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
286.95
134.58ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
51.00GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
226.03POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
182.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
86.08PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
555.36ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
23.50TREE MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.74HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,271.79
2,127.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
2,127.00
13.97-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSOMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC
217.16PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
203.19
3,030.48PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
104.74OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
138.94WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.06NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,377.22
188.85EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
188.85
388.00REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC
388.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
68.64INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
68.64
8,503.15PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEPEARSON BROTHERS INC
1,932.01CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,435.16
5,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
5,500.00
19.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A LICENSESPETTY CASH
15.29POLICE G & A TRAINING
27.25DWI ENFORCEMENT LICENSES
9.47PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LICENSES
19.28PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
13.80WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.97WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
65.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
23.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
22.15SOLID WASTE G&A MEETING EXPENSE
355.71
96.19AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
96.19
120.98INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
120.98
71.89-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPOLLARDWATER.COM
1,117.59STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,045.70
632.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
632.02
364.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP.COM INC
364.74
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
588.00PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESPOTTERS INDUSTRIES INC
588.00
32.17-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
500.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
467.83
13,219.37TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
13,219.37
20.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPRICE, DENISE
20.00
108.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
108.00
957.00DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRISM EXPRESS MANAGER
957.00
199.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPRYOR SEMINARS, FRED
199.00
646.72BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
646.72
1,151.08GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPUSH PEDAL PULL-BLP
1,151.08
1,885.72TRAFFIC CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQ3 CONTRACTING
841.65WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,826.15STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,553.52
46.73VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
46.73
1,203.63TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICERAINBOW TREECARE
1,203.63
2,552.04FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,151.65REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
986.05SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,689.74
5,498.53COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREACH FOR RESOURCES INC
5,498.53
57.69POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
253.69POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
311.38
12,723.90TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTRICOH CORP
12,723.90
138.33-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSROGERS ATHLETIC
2,150.33FOOTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
2,012.00
406.39SEALCOAT PREPARATION EQUIPMENT PARTSRUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
6,946.88SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,353.27
24,000.00ESCROWSSUPER TARGET - RYAN COMPANIESRYAN COMPANIES INC
24,000.00
35.54-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSS & S WORLDWIDE INC
552.52SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
516.98
190.55OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
27.77OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
202.46ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
79.64ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
79.31SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.32SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
5,547.63CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
6,179.68
7,424.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA COLLECTED BY CITYSCHUTZ, JOANN
7,424.00
3,567.27SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
3,567.27
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,524.60IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESENSUS METERING SYSTEMS
1,524.60
131.25STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISGC HORIZON LLC
131.25
1,275.82PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
1,275.82
271.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT
10.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
56.25POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
348.00
131.97GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS
131.97
332.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
3,488.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,820.00
2,418.00PAINTINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIR LINES-A-LOT
2,418.00
110.82NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSKELLY, GABRIEL
110.82
81.82REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSLAIS, DIANE
81.82
1,345.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,345.92
5,670.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSOURCE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
5,670.00
575.00OPERATIONSTRAININGSOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAI
575.00
600.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESPECIAL SERVICES GROUP LLC
600.00
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
330.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESPICEWORKS
330.00
15.17WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSSPS COMPANIES INC
331.92WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
715.79STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,062.88
214.82REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO
214.82
5,542.54TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
5,542.54
188.73REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICESTANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC
188.73
463.32WESTWOOD G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SO
463.32
1,007.87CRACK SEALING PROJECTS EQUIPMENT PARTSSTEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC
1,007.87
605.21SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESTRAND MFG CO
605.21
743.05POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
235.98STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
979.03
163.36REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSULLIVAN, LOIS
163.36
22,150.58REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
22,150.58
247.27ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
247.27
1.55-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUNDBERG CO, CE
24.04ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22.49
16,632.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC
16,632.00
11.92-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTAHO SPORTSWEAR
489.84SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
477.92
74.55BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
74.56WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
149.11
42.66ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
51.90HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.51COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.32IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
33.10ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
64.49FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
106.69COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
113.80POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
72.21OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
54.34INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.99PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.77ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
65.00ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
12.99REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.60HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,939.90EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,827.63
153.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, JAMES
153.00
745.66BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
745.66
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.44-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTIDI PRODUCTS LLC
333.25SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
311.81
408.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
408.75
910.62WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTKDA
910.62
382.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, JOHN
382.50
78.38-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTREE TRUST
1,218.38TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,140.00
1,839.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEUHL CO INC
2,321.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
251.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
4,411.00
262.51OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
262.51
1,464.87POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
1,464.87
1,066.22STORM WATER UTILITY G&A RENTAL EQUIPMENTUNITED RENTALS INC
1,066.22
300.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
300.00
480.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
480.00
1,893.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYUS AUTOFORCE
121.77-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,771.25
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
408.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTUS HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP
408.00
532.82OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
532.82
756.54UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSVALLEY-RICH CO INC
756.54
700.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVAN NESTE, TRAVIS
700.00
103.79ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
103.79
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
20.00
1,219.05VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
1,219.05
15.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEVOUGHT, JENNIFER
15.00
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWADSTEN, HEIDI
1,000.00
780.86SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
4,281.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
60,428.10SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25,249.86SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
34,028.00SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
14,321.69SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
139,090.01
409.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
409.00
8,968.17CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
8,968.17
3,890.25BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESWEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,890.25
200.82WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
467.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
667.82
80.09REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEIGAND, KATHRYN
80.09
141.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
141.00
482.22PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWHEELER LUMBER LLC
482.22
3,164.28ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
3,164.28
203.06FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
203.06
17,201.54FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.23OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
24,227.63PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,413.30PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
29.37BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
76.82WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
592.37WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
22,500.50ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31,817.22WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
906.10REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,118.97SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,054.17STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
105.58OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
110,065.80
37,232.69PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
8.75-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
37,223.94
344.70BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
344.70
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
8/1/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:46:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
31Page -Council Check Summary
7/27/2012 -7/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
244.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZIP PRINTING
244.62WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
489.24
Report Totals 1,863,227.20
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 32
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance approving the
amendment to the Administrative Penalties regulations, and to set the second reading for August
20, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to make this change to the City Code to allow for a simpler and more
direct code enforcement procedure?
BACKGROUND:
Charter Amendment:
The Charter Amendment enabling the City to adopt an administrative penalty process was
approved by the City Council on March 5, 2012. The amendment was advertised as required by
State Law, and became effective on June 15, 2012.
Enforcement:
Staff works diligently with property owners to try to resolve violations without issuing citations.
This means we contact the property owner to discuss the violation in person whenever possible,
and send written notices informing the property owner of the violation. Most issues are resolved
when a property owner is informed of the violation. The citation is a last resort to gain
compliance, when other methods have not worked. Some cases will require a more formal
response, and are turned over to the City Attorney for prosecution in the court system.
Ordinance Amendments:
With the Charter amendment to implement an Administrative Penalty process completed, the
next step is to proceed with amendments to City Code to establish the parameters and procedures
for implementing the Administrative Penalty program. The draft ordinance was presented to the
Council at several study sessions since June of 2011. During this time, staff also conducted
several meetings with various departments to work out details for implementing the process. A
summary of the implementation is noted below:
Administrative Penalty Process:
The new Administrative Penalty system includes a process for issuing citations. Citation forms
will be distributed to the various departments that will use them. These Departments include:
Community Development, Inspections, Public Works, Parks & Recreation and Fire. This
compares to the history of only Community Development and Inspections issuing County
citations, which are issued through Hennepin County courts.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
It is anticipated that the City will initially see an increase in citations issued due to the increase in
the number of departments that will issue the administrative citations that did not issue the
county citations. The increase in citations will be for minor violations such as failing to put the
trash can away ($25 fine) or failing to shovel a sidewalk ($50 fine). To reduce the number of
citations issued, staff will begin by informing residents of the new fine, prior to issuing citations.
Assessing Unpaid Citations:
At the end of the year, all unpaid citations will be assessed against the property in a manner
similar to how unpaid utility bills are assessed.
Appealing a Citation:
A citation may be contested. The process for doing so is an expansion of the current appeal
process. Under the current ordinance, the appeal is heard by the City Manager or a designee.
The new process requires a hearing officer that is not a City staff person, and it also requires that
notices be mailed to all parties involved.
Administrative Hearing:
A hearing is conducted when a citation is contested. The hearing will be attended by the hearing
officer, enforcement officer and the violator. The hearing officer will review the rules of the
hearing, and give each party up to 15 minutes to present the case. The decision will be made at
the conclusion of the hearing, and it is final.
Hearing Officer - Qualifications:
The City will maintain a list of three Hearing Officers at a minimum. Only three are needed
based on our projection of conducting 1-2 hearings per year. The Hearing Officers will be
attorneys that do not live in the City.
Hearing Officer – Terms:
The appointment process will be conducted on an as-needed basis, so the Hearing Officers will
serve until they either withdraw, or are removed from the list by the City Council. This means
staff will initiate the process if:
1. The case load is consistently high and more Hearing Officers are needed.
2. Hearing Officers withdraw their names from the list.
3. The City determines a Hearing Officer can no longer fulfill his/her commitment. This may
be the result of an inability to schedule a hearing with this Hearing Officer, or the Hearing
Officer does not appear to perform in an unbiased manner.
Civil Penalty Fine Schedule:
The proposed ordinance includes an amendment to Appendix A – Fee Schedule. This
amendment replaces the existing fine schedule with a new schedule that is more detailed and
specific to certain types of violations. Staff from all departments that would issue administrative
citations worked together to form the draft fine schedule. The fine schedule is written in such a
way that each chapter of the City Code has a penalty that covers any violation to that chapter.
Some chapters may carry greater penalties than others due to the severity of the violations
typically found in that chapter. There are some exceptions listed to each chapter that may
require a greater or lesser penalty than the standard penalty for that chapter. These exceptions
are listed under each chapter heading.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
Consideration was given to determine the amount of the penalty so that it is fair, of sufficient
amount to gain compliance, and not so much that people will appeal the penalty in the hopes of
getting it reduced.
For repeat violations within 24 months, the penalty will double the previous penalty levied, up to
a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a
$50 fine for the first violation, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50;
second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
NEXT STEPS:
1. August 20, 2012 – City Council conducts the second reading of ordinance.
2. September, 2012 – Finalize forms and process. Advertise for Hearing Officers.
3. October, 2012 – Train staff on process and appoint Hearing Officers.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is the intent of the Administrative Penalty process to respectfully resolve code violations in a
manner that reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
AMENDING SECTION 1-14 AND APPENDIX A
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 1-14 and Appendix A of the City Code are hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 1-14. Civil Penalties.
(a) Purpose.
(1) Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this section are intended to
provide the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious
alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions.
(2) The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been
charged with administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the
administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from
participation in the procedures in which event the city may bring criminal charges in
accordance with law. Likewise, the city, in its discretion, may choose not to initiate an
administrative offense and may bring criminal charges in the first instance.
(3) In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not
pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the city will seek to collect the costs
of the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the
event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
(b) Administrative offense defined. An administrative offense is a violation of a provision of
this Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of offenses and
penalties referred to in subsection (h), hereafter.
(c) Notice. Any person employed by the city, authorized in writing by the city manager,
shall, upon determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a
vehicular violation, attach to the vehicle a notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the
nature, date and time of violation, the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of
the scheduled penalty.
(d) Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven days of the
time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties for the
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
violation. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be deemed to be an
admission of the violation.
(e) Appeal. Any person who is required by the city to pay an administrative penalty may
make a written appeal of the penalty to the city manager, or designee, within seven days of
notice by the city of the penalty. The city manager, or designee, will have authority to reduce the
fine or determine whether the appellant is to be charged with a penalty.
(f) Failure to pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails to pay the
penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the alleged violator
in accordance with applicable statutes.
(g) Disposition of penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to
the city and may be deposited in the city's general fund.
(h) Offenses and penalties. Offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and
the penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the city council from time to
time and listed in appendix A to this Code.
(i) Subsequent offenses. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent administrative
offense within a 12-month period of paying a penalty for the same or substantially similar
offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by $10.00 above the previous
administrative penalty.
***
(a) Purpose. The city council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing
the city code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement
mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the city and the accused. The delay
inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. The higher burden of proof and the
potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most Code violations; and the criminal
process does not always regard city code violations as being important. Accordingly, the city
council finds that the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties is a
legitimate and necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement is in
addition to any other legal remedy that may be pursued for city code violations.
(b) Alternative methods of enforcement.
(1) The administrative hearing process provided for in this Article shall be in addition to
any other legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
(2) The city may initiate a civil enforcement action to obtain code compliance before,
during or after an administrative enforcement proceedings.
(3) If the final adjudication in the administrative penalty procedure is a finding of no
violation, then the city may not prosecute a criminal violation in district court based on
the same set of facts. This does not preclude the city from pursuing an administrative
penalty or a criminal conviction for a violation of the same provision of the City Code
based on a different set of facts. A different date of violation will constitute a different
set of facts and a separate offense.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
(c) General provisions.
(1) A violation of a provision of the city code or a violation of the terms and conditions of
a city approval, including permits and licenses, required and granted under this code is
an administrative offense that may be subject to an administrative citation and civil
penalties. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense.
(2) An offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per separate
offense.
(3) The city council will adopt by ordinance a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by
administrative citation. The city council is not bound by the schedule when a matter is
appealed to it for administrative review.
(4) The city council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing
officers for his or her services.
(d) Administrative citation.
(1) A person authorized to enforce provisions of the city code may issue an administrative
citation upon belief that a code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in
person or by first class mail to the person responsible for the violation. The citation
must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the identity of the person issuing the
citation, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or
appealing the citation. If the city seeks to impose more than one fine for a continuing
violation, a separate citation shall be issued for each violation date.
(2) The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a
hearing within ten calendar days after issuance of the citation. Payment of the fine
constitutes admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine
amount will be imposed in accordance with section 1-14(h).
(e) Administrative hearing.
(1) The city council will periodically approve a list of attorneys licensed to practice law in
the State of Minnesota, from which the city manager will randomly select a hearing
officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The accused
will have the right to request no later than five calendar days before the date of the
hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed from the case. One request for
each case will be granted automatically by the city manager. A subsequent request
must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she
cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The city enforcement officer may
remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned hearing officer find that
he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. If such a finding is made, the
officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the city manager will assign
another hearing officer. The hearing officer must not be a city employee. The city
manager must establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing
officers, including comments from accused violators and city staff. These reports must
be provided to the city council.
(2) Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of a party
demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material
to the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving
the subpoena and for paying the fees and expenses of a witness in accordance with the
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
same rules governing civil lawsuits in state court. A person served with a subpoena
may file an objection with the hearing officer promptly but no later than the time
specified in the subpoena for compliance. The hearing officer may cancel or modify
the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. A person who, without just cause,
fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience
to a subpoena is guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the
subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance.
(3) Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for
the violation at least 10 calendar days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by
all parties. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony
and question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence will not apply. The hearing
officer must tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer
must receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses
probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of
their affairs.
(4) The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a
citation, to impose or modify (increase or decrease) the scheduled fine, and to modify,
stay, or waive a scheduled fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with
appropriate conditions. When imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer
may consider any or all of the following factors:
a. The duration of the violation;
b. The frequency or reoccurrence of the violation;
c. The seriousness of the violation;
d. The history of the violation;
e. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing;
f. The good faith effort by the violator to comply;
g. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator;
h. The impact of the violation upon the community; and
i. Any other factors appropriate to a just result.
(5) The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing.
(6) Except for matters subject to administrative review under subsection (f) Appeal to City
Council, the decision of the hearing officer is final without any further right of
administrative appeal.
(7) The failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an
administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive
this result upon good cause shown. Examples of “good cause” are: death or
incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the accused to appear for
another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of
the hearing. “Good cause” does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay.
(f) Appeal to City Council.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
(1) The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by a
party to the city council for administrative review by submitting a request in writing to
the city clerk within 10 calendar days after the hearing officer's decision:
a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval typically granted by
the city council as required by an ordinance;
b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, of the conditions attached
to the permit, license, or approval, that was granted by the city council; and
(2) The appeal will be heard by the city council after notice served in person or by
registered mail at least 10 calendar days in advance. The parties to the hearing will
have an opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's
decision.
(3) The city council must consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any
additional arguments before making a determination. The council is not bound by the
hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The
council's decision must be in writing.
(4) If the council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not
exceeding $2,000.00 per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors contained
in section 1-14(e)4. The council may also modify, stay, or waive a fine unconditionally
or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions.
(5) In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the council may suspend or revoke a city-issued
license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in the
city code for suspension or revocation has been followed.
(g) Judicial review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the
hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law.
(h) Recovery of civil penalties.
(1) If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it constitutes:
a. A personal obligation of the violator;
b. An obligation of a business or person(s) that is conducting an activity licensed by
the City if the violation relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity,
use or delivery of services associated with the business or activity; and
c. A lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the violation
relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity, use or delivery of City
services associated with the property.
(2) A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as
taxes. The lien may include the administrative and legal costs incurred by the city in
connection with collecting the unpaid administrative penalty. Prior to assessing the lien
against the property, the city must attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the
administrative penalty and provide the property owner listed on the tax record with
notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(3) A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means.
(4) A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be assessed for each 30-day period, or part
thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date.
(5) During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, no city approval will be granted for
a license, permit, or other city approval sought by the violator or for property under the
violator’s ownership or control.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
(6) Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending, revoking, denying, or not renewing a
license or permit associated with the violation.
(i) Applicable laws. Where differences occur between provisions of this chapter and other
applicable code sections, this chapter applies.
***
APPENDIX A – 2011 FEE SCHEDULE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
Chapter 4 – Animal regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations ----
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Businesses and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 – Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50
Chapter 14, Section 75 - Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management $50
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 - Streets, sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24 -43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public
way
$25
Chapter 24, Section 50 - Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150
Chapter 24, Section 51 - Sweeping leaves into street prohibited $100
Chapter 24, Section 151 - Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100
Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50
Chapter 36 – Zoning $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development, or Special Permit approval $750
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of City Code Amendment Pertaining to Administrative Penalties
Repeat Violations within 24 Months.
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000.
For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the
fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections.
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading August 6, 2012
Second Reading August 20, 2012
Date of Publication August 30, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect September 14, 2012
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amendment to
Chapter 3 of City Code concerning Brewer Taproom on-sale malt liquor licensing and to set
second reading for August 20, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to make changes to the City Code to allow brewer taproom licensing as
proposed by staff and city attorney?
BACKGROUND:
MN Statutes were recently amended to allow municipalities to issue a taproom license to a state
licensed brewer. The State Statute allows cities to issue a brewer taproom license that allows the
on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to
one brewery location owned by the brewer. The City has been approached by Steel Toe
Brewing, 4848 35th Street, who receives several requests monthly for tours, meets the criteria,
and would like to add a taproom for those people visiting its facility. To allow a licensed brewer
taproom in St. Louis Park, the city would have to amend its liquor and zoning ordinances.
Microbreweries are becoming very popular in Minnesota and New Ulm, Stillwater, St. Paul,
Minneapolis, and Walker have recently passed Taproom license ordinances as allowed by state
statute. The only alcoholic beverages sold or consumed on the premises of a taproom are the
malt liquor produced by the brewer upon the brewery premises. According to these cities’
ordinances, the brewer taproom licenses are very different and therefore were considered exempt
from maintaining minimum food service requirements because they do not qualify as a
restaurant, and are considered a separate classification (not an on-sale intoxicating liquor license
or wine license requiring a food/liquor sales percentage ratio). The cities fees for this taproom
license ranged from $200 to $5,000. All Brewer Tap Room liquor licenses require approval by
the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division prior to becoming effective.
The City Council discussed the taproom option at its May 21, 2012 and June 25, 2012 Study
Sessions and directed staff to prepare amendments to the Liquor License and Zoning Ordinances
to allow taprooms. The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and determined
to be consistent with State Law and existing City Ordinances.
A public hearing is required for ordinance amendments to the City Code Chapter 3 regarding
Alcoholic Beverages. The Zoning Ordinance amendments will be presented to council as an
action item following the public hearing. A summary of the liquor ordinance amendment is as
follows:
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
Liquor License Amendment:
1. A taproom license will be issued only to brewers that produce less than 3,500 barrels of malt
liquor per year. State Statute allows taprooms at brewers that produce up to 250,000 barrels
annually, however State Statutes only allow growler sales at breweries that produce up to
3,500 barrels annually. Staff chose to be consistent with the treatment of growler sales and
taprooms and therefore set a 3,500 annual barrel production limit for both items. As a matter
of comparison, Steel Toe currently produces 500 barrels annually. The owner of Steel Toe
does not anticipate the 3,500 barrel limit becoming a hindrance in the future.
2. The malt liquor sold for consumption on site must be produced by the brewer on the licensed
premises. This is a requirement of state law.
3. A brewer may have only one taproom license. This is a requirement of State Law.
4. Hours of operation for on-sale of malt liquor at a brewer taproom shall be within the
following hours:
Monday - Thursday: 3 pm to 8 pm
Friday: 3 pm to 10 pm
Saturday: 11 am to 10 pm
Sunday: 11 am to 8 pm
Federally Recognized Holidays: 11 am to 10 pm
5. A restaurant is not allowed at a brewery with a taproom license. The brewer would,
however, be allowed to sell simple pre-packaged snacks (chips, peanuts, popcorn, etc.) for
consumption on-site. This requirement is added to provide a distinction between a liquor
license issued to restaurants and a brewery taproom. The intent of the taproom is to provide
customers an opportunity to sample and enjoy the malt beverage produced by the brewery. It
is not intended to provide a dining experience. If the City’s zoning regulations allows
restaurants in the location of the brewery, then the brewer can choose to abandon the taproom
license and apply for an intoxicating liquor license which is typically issued to restaurants,
and the brewer would need to comply with all requirements of that license, including
food/liquor sale ratios.
Recommendation
The proposed amendments to Sections 3-32 and 3-57 of the city ordinance code would allow this
type of activity and assure the city is in compliance with state statute.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff is recommending a license fee of $800 for an On Sale Brewer’s Taproom License to cover
costs of providing administration and enforcement.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics
in all city initiatives.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING
BREWER TAPROOM LICENSING
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3, Article II, Division 1, Section 3-32 of the City Code is hereby
amended by adding the following provisions:
Sec. 3-32. Definitions.
Brewer means a person who manufactures malt liquor for sale.
SECTION 2. Chapter 3, Article II, Division 2, Section 3-57 of the City Code is hereby
amended by adding the following provisions:
Sec. 3-57. Classifications.
(14) Brewer taproom license. A brewer who has a license from the Commissioner of
Public Safety to brew up to 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year may be issued a
license by the City for on-sale of malt liquor subject to the following conditions:
a. The malt liquor sold on sale for consumption must be produced by the brewer on
the licensed premises.
b. No other beverages containing alcohol may be sold or consumed on the licensed
premises
b. A brewer may only have one taproom license.
c. Hours of operation for on-sale of malt liquor at a brewer taproom shall be within
the following hours:
Monday - Thursday 3:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Friday 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Saturday 11:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Sunday 11:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Federally Recognized
Holidays
11:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
d. A restaurant is not allowed at a brewery with a taproom license.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after
its publication.
ENACTED this 20th day of August, 2012, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Public Hearing/First Reading August 6, 2012
Second Reading August 20, 2012
Date of Publication August 30, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect September 14, 2012
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Brewer Taproom Licensing
RESOLUTION NO. 12-_____
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11-126
ADOPTING ANNUAL FEES FOR LIQUOR LICENSES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM THROUGH MARCH 1, 2013
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance authorizing brewer’s to sell malt liquor
beverages produced by the brewer on the licensed premises for on-sale consumption.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 11-126 is amended by adding the following fee:
Liquor License Type: 2012 Fee
On Sale Brewer’s Taproom
and Sunday Liquor License $800
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Brewery Taprooms
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to Brewery
Taprooms, and to set the second reading for August 20, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to make changes to the Zoning Code to allow brewer taprooms?
BACKGROUND:
MN Statutes were recently amended to allow municipalities to issue a taproom license to a state
licensed brewer. The City has been approached by Steel Toe Brewing, located at 4848 35th
Street in the Beltline Industrial Park, about allowing a Brewer Taproom at its facility (letter
attached). Before the City can issue a taproom license, changes have to be made to the Zoning
Ordinance to identify which zoning districts a taproom is allowed, and the conditions in which it
can operate.
The City Council discussed the taproom option at its May 21, 2012 and June 25, 2012 study
sessions, and directed staff to prepare amendments to allow taprooms. As directed, staff
prepared the attached amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for your review. The draft ordinance
was reviewed by the City Attorney, and determined to be consistent with State Law and existing
City Ordinances. A summary of the ordinance follows:
Zoning Amendment:
1. Staff is proposing to create the following land use definitions that would be amended into the
zoning ordinance:
Taproom means a facility where on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for
consumption on the premises of, or adjacent to, the brewery location owned by the brewer at
which the malt liquor is produced.
Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and/or nonalcoholic malt liquor. This
definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an
accessory use.
2. Breweries are proposed to be allowed in the Business Park, Industrial Park and General
Industrial Zoning Districts as permitted uses. Currently we consider breweries under the
“manufacturing/processing” land use which is a permitted land use (Conditional Use Permit
not required) in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Zoning Districts. Breweries are
proposed to be permitted with the following condition:
Business Park and Industrial Park - the brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels
per year. This requirement will maintain consistency with the growler and taproom
requirements.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Brewery Taprooms
General Industrial Park – no additional conditions. A brewery in this district can produce
any amount of beverage; however, it will not be allowed to sell growlers once it exceeds
3,500 barrels per year (per state law). Staff also recommends that a taproom not be allowed
in the General Industrial District even if it produces less than 3,500 barrels per year. The
General Industrial District is intended to manufacture and warehouse items on a large scale.
Therefore, it is not conducive to general public traffic looking for refreshment or
entertainment activities.
3. Taprooms are proposed to be located in the Business Park and Industrial Park Zoning
Districts with the following condition:
Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery in a Business Park District, and up to15%
in the Industrial Park Zoning District may be used for any combination of retail and a
taproom.
The 25% and 15% floor area limitations are already established in the Business Park and
Industrial Park Zoning District for retail and service uses. Staff is proposing to include the
taproom in the area limitation so that the total of all taproom, retail and other accessory uses
in total do not exceed the 25% or 15% limitation.
Liquor License Amendment:
Changes are also proposed to the Liquor License Ordinance to license taprooms and establish
criteria and conditions specific to taprooms. Both the Liquor License amendment and the
Zoning Ordinance amendment will be heard by the City Council on August 6th. The Liquor
License amendment is scheduled separately because a public hearing is required to be conducted
by the City Council. There is a separate staff report for that item that summarizes the proposed
liquor license amendment.
Planning Commission Action:
A public hearing was held at the July 18, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Jason
Schoneman, owner of Steel Toe Brewery, spoke in favor of the amendment. The Commission
voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics
in all city initiatives.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Brewery Taprooms
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 DEFINITIONS,
36-233 BP BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT,
36-243 I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT,
AND 36-244 I-G GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-18-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-233, 36-243, and 36-244
are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
***
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
***
Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor. This
definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an accessory
use.
***
Taproom means a facility where on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption
on the premises of, or adjacent to, the brewery location owned by the brewer at which the malt
liquor is produced.
***
Sec. 36-233. BP business park district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any BP district may be used for
one or more of the following uses if it has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 and complies
with the performance standards as stated in Section 36-232 and the conditions stated below:
***
1. Brewery. The conditions are as follows:
a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year.
b. Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of
retail and a taproom.
***
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Brewery Taprooms
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an I-P district may be used for one or
more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-242 and
those specified for the use permitted in this subsection:
***
(11) Brewery. The conditions are as follows:
a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year.
b. Up to 15% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of
retail and a taproom.
***
Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district.
***
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an I-G district.
***
(15) Brewery.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-18-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing - Planning Commission July 18, 2012
First Reading August 6, 2012
Second Reading August 20, 2012
Date of Publication August 30, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect September 14, 2012
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of a marketing agreement with Utility Service Partners Private
Label, Inc. agreeing to cooperate in the marketing of their program to city residents and
homeowners.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to participate in the NLC Service Line Warranty Program?
BACKGROUND:
History
On May 14, staff presented Council with information on the National League of Cities (NLC)
Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP), which is a
home protection solution for residents arranged by NLC Enterprise Programs - see Program
Description below. The program appeared acceptable to Council and viewed as a tool that could
meet the needs of some residents. However, Council expressed some concern over the viability
of USP since this is a relatively new program and company. Before approving participation in
this program, Council requested staff perform due diligence in evaluating USP as a reputable,
viable program vendor.
On July 9, 2012 staff presented Council a written report documenting due diligence efforts and
results by City Attorney Tom Scott. As a part of the report, Cynthia Cusick at the National
League of Cities, provided written favorable documentation regarding the contractor and the
workings of the program to date. In addition, the homeowner contract with the service warranty
company, Utility Services Partners, was modified to eliminate language which could possibly
exclude coverage for any property owner who has homeowners insurance, even though home-
owners insurance would not cover the cost of a water or sewer service line in need of repair.
As a final step in our due diligence efforts and to enhance this program to better meet city and
resident needs, staff has negotiated a final marketing agreement with USP (attached). Notable
revisions, based on City Attorney and LMCIT legal staff recommendations, include:
• Reduced termination notice from 90 to 60 days
• Clarification of determination of the 10% rate reduction
• Added requirement that USP provide a minimum of $1,000,000 in commercial general
liability (CGL) insurance; city to be added as an additional insured to USP CGL
insurance; USP to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city for any work or
activities performed pursuant to this agreement
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
Program Description
The National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility
Service Partners Private Label, Inc. (USP), is a home protection solution for residents arranged
by NLC Enterprise Programs. This program appears to provide an affordable home protection
solution which could help residents save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing
broken or leaking water or sewer service lines. Currently, only residential properties with non-
shared (single) service lines are eligible to participate in this program.
Homeowners in participating cities are eligible to purchase low-cost warranties, which provides
for cleaning, repairs, or replacement of broken or leaking water and sewer service lines of up to
$4,000, or more, per occurrence. T ypically, service line repairs range in the several thousands of
dollars and can create significant financial hardships for an unprepared homeowner. This
warranty program is designed to transfer the risk of these costly repairs. Approximate
homeowner costs will likely range from $6 to $9 per line per month – specific rates are
determined for each city’s particular situation based on local infrastructure and policies.
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program provides residents a warranty for service line cleaning,
repair, or replacement for monthly fee, with no deductibles or service fees. This work is
performed by licensed, local contractors who are to return customer calls within one hour of a
claim being filed. USP provides a personally staffed 24/7 hotline for residents, 365 days a year.
There is no cost for a city to participate in this program. However, participating cities can elect
to receive a share of the revenues collected from within the city. This program is in the final stage
of being offered to all cities in the 48 contiguous states with completion expected during the first
half of 2012.
Staff has attached three exhibits providing information on this program:
1. Exhibit 1 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
2. Exhibit 2 - Frequently Asked Questions
3. Exhibit 3 - Implementation Process
In addition, the following link provides very good info on the USP website and their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/index.html
Plus the following link is to a video providing information on their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/overview-video/
About Utility Service Partners, Inc.
USP, headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is an independent provider of service line
warranties and water heater rentals in the United States. USP is a portfolio company of
Macquarie Capital, part of Macquarie Group Limited, one of the world’s largest owners and
managers of infrastructure assets and a manager of over $36 billion in infrastructure equity
around the world.
What cooperation is needed from the City of St. Louis Park?
St. Louis Park is required to enter into a marketing services agreement with USP which creates a
co-branded marketing program for USP in the city. Staff has attached the final negotiated
marketing agreement which needs to be approved to participate in the USP program. The
agreement provides for the use of the city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo, on
marketing materials sent to citizens. By participating in this program, the city is endorsing USP
as the service provider for this warranty program.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
The term of the marketing agreement is for one year and it renews on an annual basis unless one
party provides a 60 day advance written notice of intention not to renew. City may terminate the
agreement 30 days after giving notice of material breach if breach is not cured within 30 days.
Staff Analysis
Staff has discussed the pros and cons of this program with NLC staff, LMC staff, our city
attorney, and the regional representative for USP. Based on that input, staff has analyzed this
program (see Exhibit 4 – Staff Analysis) to aid Council in discussing participation in this program.
Based on the analysis provided in Exhibit 4, staff feels this is a reliable credible program that
could be of benefit to some residents in St. Louis Park.
Local Participation:
Buffalo, Mn is currently participating in this program. They began program participation
during the last half of 2011 and state they are pleased with the results to date. They received
quite a few calls for the first several weeks when the program was initially marketed by USP;
resident inquiries have since ceased. Buffalo opted to receive revenues rather than rebate
savings to the residents. They just received their first quarterly revenue check for sewer service
line registrations which amounted to about $1,500.
Columbia Heights, Mn approved participation in the program on March 20, 2012. USP
performed a spring marketing campaign during May with about 20% of households signing up
for this coverage. Columbia Heights approved the program for both sewer and water service
lines. They opted to receive no rebate and passed the savings on to the participating property
owners. The program was approved by the Council on a 4-1 vote. The council member who did
not vote for it felt this was an optional only type coverage and felt that the City shouldn't be
involved. This item was brought forward by a council member and was only briefly and lightly
discussed before adoption.
Chanhassen and South St. Paul, Mn have considered this program during the past 12
months and are still considering participation in the program. They have the following concerns:
1. The program is new to Minnesota and there is no track record here yet; waiting to see
how this works for other Minnesota cities
2. USP use of the city logo on their letter head and associated resident complaints
If other Minnesota cities participate in this program with good results, these cities probably will also.
Eagan, Mn Public Works staff has begun investigating participation in this program.
Summary and Next Steps
In general, this program appears to deal with a commonly heard residential complaint - the high
cost associated with unexpected service line repairs. City contacts have confirmed this is a good
program and USP appears to be a reputable viable vendor.
Based on the earlier staff evaluation and the due diligence results obtained by the City Attorney,
staff feels this is a reliable credible program that could be of benefit to some residents in St.
Louis Park. Staff has developed the following basic steps and schedule should Council wish to
participate in this program:
Council approves marketing agreement August 6
City conducts a public information campaign informing residents of
service line warranty program availability fall of 2012
August – September
USP markets program September - October
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No impact to the city. The marketing agreement offers the warranties at a 10% discount rate (no
royalty rates) to participating residents so they realize the savings associated with this program
(no revenues for the city).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
Exhibit 2 - Frequently Asked Questions
Exhibit 3 - Implementation Process
Exhibit 4 - Staff Analysis
Marketing Agreement
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
NLC SERVICE LINE
WARRANTY PROGRAM
BUILDING PEACE OF MIND, ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME
Bringing Solutions and Savings to Cities
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 5
HOME PROTECTION SOLUTION
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program, administered
by Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP), is an affordable
home protection solution for your residents offered at no
cost to the city. It helps city residents save thousands of
dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or leaking
water or sewer lines. The city also receives a share of
the revenues collected.
PEACE OF MIND
Residents, who have not set aside money to pay for an
unexpected, expensive utility line repair, now have an
opportunity to obtain a low-cost warranty that will pro-
vide repairs for a low monthly fee, with no deductibles
or service fees. The work is performed by licensed, lo-
cal plumbers who will call the customer within one hour
of filing a claim. The repair is performed professionally
and quickly, typically within 24 hours. USP provides
a personally staffed 24/7 repair hotline for residents,
365 days a year.
NLC SERVICE LINE
WARRANTY PROGRAM
BUILDING PEACE OF MIND, ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME
This program is offered by Utilities Service Partners, Inc. (USP).
USP is solely responsible for the implementation and operation of the program.
BENEFITS
NO COST to your city
Generates revenue for your city
Affordable rates for residents
24/7 customer service
Trusted local contractors
Simple implementation process
Fewer citizen complaints
Repairs performed to local code
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Once your city agrees to participate in the program,
start up is simple. The program is designed for a quick
launch, taking up little of your city employees’ valuable
time. USP administers the program and is responsible
for marketing, billing, customer service, and perform-
ing all repairs to local code.
MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about this program, visit NLC’s website
at www.nlc.org/enterpriseprograms or contact Denise
Belser, Program Director, at belser@nlc.org or (202)
626-3028. Call your State League or NLC to sign up
for the program.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 6
UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS
How long has the company been in business?
The company was originally formed in 1998 within
Columbia Energy to provide service line warranties for its
utility customers. USP was formed in September 2003 to
purchase Columbia Service Partners from Columbia Energy.
USP continues to expand the product offerings and grow the
business through city and utility partnerships. USP is a proud
member of the Better Business Bureau.
PROGRAM
Is this program available everywhere?
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program will be introduced
throughout the contiguous United States in phases over the
next 18 months. Please see our National Roll-Out Schedule
map for details regarding your state.
How are our citizens notified of the program?
USP mails each resident a campaign letter which outlines
the cities’ endorsement, followed by a reminder letter two
weeks later to ensure the highest response rate. USP only
solicits through direct mail — no telemarketing is ever
employed. All homeowners will have the option to enroll in
the program, regardless of the age of their residence.
What cooperation will be needed from the cities?
USP desires to enter into a co-branded marketing services
agreement with each city. The agreement provides for the
use of the city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo,
on marketing materials sent to citizens. The city is endorsing
USP as the service provider for the warranty program.
When do you solicit residents?
Through the years, we have found the optimal times to invite
citizens to participate are in the Spring and Fall of each year.
Does NLC or USP sell or rent the personal
information of residents that enroll in the program?
No. Neither the NLC nor USP will sell or rent the names of
prospective customers or participants.
How much does the resident pay for this service?
Each warranty is sold separately and the price range is
generally between $4 and $5 a month per product.
BENEFITS
How much will residents save by using the warranty
program?
While costs for water line and sewer line repairs can vary,
the average cost of repairing a broken water line or sewer
line may range from $1,200 to over $3,500.
Will this program cost the city any money?
Not a cent. USP pays for all marketing materials and
program administration. Furthermore, USP will pay the city
a royalty for every resident that participates in the program!
What benefit does the city receive from endorsing
these programs?
By endorsing the USP programs, the city is able to reduce
residents’ frustration over utility line failures by bringing
them low-cost service options. 96% of survey respondents
say that their image of the city is enhanced because the
warranty program is offered as a service by the city. These
programs also generate extra revenue for the city through
the royalty that is paid by USP to the city. Finally our
programs help to stimulate the local economy. USP only
uses local contractors to complete the repairs which helps
to keep the dollars in the local community.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Who administers the program?
Utility Service Partners (USP) administers the program and
is responsible for all aspects of the program including
marketing, billing, customer service, and performing all
repairs to local code.
What are the city’s responsibilities?
We ask each city to work with USP to provide the
following; 1) a copy of the city seal, if available, for the
solicitation letterhead 2) the city’s return address for outer
envelope (this ensures a high “open-rate”) 3) the name, title
and signature sample of the designated solicitation signor
and 4) the appropriate zip codes of the city to allow USP
to purchase a mailing list of the residents.
Why does the city have to provide a city seal,
address and signature?
We have found that while the letter is written in such a manner
as to leave no doubt that it is a USP program (the USP logo is
on the enrollment form), the city address drives a very high
“open-rate” and the city seal and signature lend credibility
to the offer, thus driving a much higher enrollment rate.
NLC SERVICE LINE WARRANTY PROGRAMFAQ’s
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 7
Will we get a lot of calls from citizens when they
get the letter?
A press release provided by USP and issued prior to the first
mailing will help alleviate citizen concerns, which should
result in nominal calls to city hall.
PRODUCTS
How will citizens know what is covered?
All customers receive a set of terms and conditions upon
enrollment in a utility warranty program. They have 30 days
from the date of enrollment to cancel and receive a full refund.
What items are included as part of the water line
warranty?
The external water warranty covers the underground service
line from the point of connection to the city main line to the
water meter. It also covers the underground service line
between the water meter and the exterior foundation of the
home. If any part of the line is broken and leaking, USP will
repair or replace the line in order to restore the service.
Coverage caps listed in the terms & conditions are per
occurrence as follows:
$4,000 plus an additional $500 for public
sidewalk cutting, if necessary
What items are included as part of the sewer line
warranty?
The external sewer line warranty covers the underground
service line from the point of connection to the city main line to
the point of entry to the home. If any part of the line is broken
and leaking, USP will repair or replace the line in order to
restore the service. Coverage caps listed in the terms &
conditions are per occurrence as follows:
$4,000 plus an additional $4,000 for public
street cutting, if necessary
The Coverage Cap looks adequate but is there an
annual or lifetime restriction on how much you will
pay to repair?
No. Unlike some other warranties available, we provide you
with the full coverage per incident. We will pay up to your
coverage amount each and every time you need us. We do
not deduct prior repair expense from your coverage cap or
limit the amount we will pay annually.
Doesn’t Homeowner’s Insurance cover this type
of repair?
Typically, no. Most homeowner policies will pay to repair the
damage created by failed utility lines but they generally do
not pay to repair the actual broken pipes or lines. We
encourage you to call your insurance company to determine
your actual coverage.
Who replaces landscaping if damaged?
USP will provide basic restoration to the site. This includes
filling in the holes, mounding the trench (to allow for settling)
and raking and seeding the affected area. Restoration does
not include replacing trees or shrubs or repairing private
paved/concrete surfaces. This is outlined in the terms &
conditions sent to the customer.
What building codes will you adhere to?
If the line is broken and leaking, USP will repair or replace
the leaking portion of the line according to the current code.
However, USP is not responsible for bringing working lines
up to code that are not in need of repair.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Will a citizen have a long hold time when
reporting a claim?
No. Repair calls receive the highest priority and are
answered 24/7. Repair calls are connected to a live agent
through a voice recognition unit (VRU).
Will the customer always get a live operator when
they call?
Yes. Customers are directed to select to speak with either a
service or claims agent and will then be directed to a live
Agent.
What is the claims process?
Program participants call a toll-free USP number to file a
claim. USP selects the contractor, who is required to contact
the customer within one hour of receiving the job to schedule
a time to begin the repairs. Typically, repairs are completed
within 24 hours. Emergencies receive priority handling.
CONTRACTORS
Who performs the repair work?
USP retains local, professional plumbers to perform all the
service line repair work.
How selective are you when choosing contractors
to conduct repairs?
USP only selects contractors who share our commitment to
excellence in customer service. Scorecards are maintained
for each contractor, tracking the customer satisfaction rating
for work performed. Customer feedback is shared with
our contractors and any contractor with a low customer
satisfaction rating is removed from the network.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 8
Implementation Process
1. Upon approval from city council (if applicable), execute
one-page contract provided by USP (upon contract execution,
USP will immediately begin to recruit and screen local contractors)
2. Approve Press Release provided by USP (general notice to
eliminate resident confusion/city calls) and if desired,
distribute to local media and/or post to the city website
3. Send the following to USP for the creation of the citizen
solicitation letter:
• City Seal artwork, if available
• Name/Title of designated signor plus signature
• City Address for outer envelope
• Zip+4 list of city territory
4. Approve Campaign Letter provided by USP
5. Access Monthly Reporting via the web
6. Receive Annual Payment
NLC SERVICE LINE WARRANTY PROGRAM
Participating is Easy…
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 9
Exhibit 4
Staff Analysis
What it is:
This is a Service Line Protection Program providing coverage for the service, repair, or
replacement of water or sewer service lines serving single family residential properties that fail
due to normal wear and tear. In exchange for the City of St. Louis Park (SLP) allowing Utility
Service Partners, Inc. (USP) to market / promote the availability of the program under our
auspices (the extent of that promotion may vary from city to city), the city can either receive a
share of the proceeds, typically 10%, or can pass this on to homeowners in the form of reduced
insurance rates.
Service line ownership costs:
Over the long term this program appears to be cost neutral to a homeowner. For example,
service line ownership cost options appear to be:
1. USP monthly cost (about $6 to $9 month per service line), or
2. Minor maintenance costs over time coupled with a large replacement cost about once
every 50 to 75 years (replacement costs can be paid outright or as special assessments
over a 10 year period currently at 5.85% interest)
Televising and cleaning of sewer service lines could cost $300 to $500. Service line repair or
replacement costs typically range from several hundred dollars (minor repairs) to $2,000 to
$7,000 (major repair or replacement).
Value to an individual city (see policy considerations below):
1. staffing resources - may increase or decrease customer service issues
2. the temperament of its council - could alter Council member / resident relationship
3. repairs completed within 24 - 48 hours
4. USP utilizes local contractors (SLP and surrounding area)
5. simple for residents - minimizes or removes political requests for city to fund private
service line costs
6. SLP can end program participation anytime
7. program is endorsed by the National League of Cities (NLC) and appears to be very
credible and of high quality
Value to SLP Residents:
1. eliminates unexpectedly high service line repair or replacement costs
2. essentially covers 100% of repair or replacement costs
3. covers cleaning tree roots from service lines
4. one call and service line problem is fixed
5. covers curb stop (shut off) repairs or replacement
6. resident can continue protection coverage if SLP terminates program participation
Policy Considerations:
1. is USP a reputable, credible company? Is this credible coverage or a credible product /
service?
2. is it easy to terminate participation if city becomes dissatisfied with the program?
3. will there be any city liability associated with participation in this program?
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 10
4. will participation in this program save staff / Council time associated with resident
complaints over service line repairs and costs?
5. will it take more time to explain and manage the city’s role in this program than the
existing situation?
6. is it better to potentially deal with constituents who are unhappy with the company’s
service or a rejected claim rather than dealing with constituents who are unhappy because
of an unexpected high service line repair or replacement cost?
7. will this coverage act as a disincentive for residents to replace their service lines in
conjunction with our street reconstruction projects?
8. does the city want to generate revenues from this program or pass on savings to property
owners?
9. possible complaints associated with this arrangement:
a. it is unfair for the city to promote a private business like this
b. company does not use the right group of subcontractors (i.e., my cousin’s a
plumber; why isn’t he on the list, poor quality or workmanship, poor customer
relations, etc.).
c. company goes out of business sometime in the future and protection expires
10. city staff will spend a great deal of time dealing with the public at the initial, marketing
end of the process. Will that be a concern? Initially residents will likely call the city
directly when they receive the solicitation, even though the brochure contains a USP
number. Some people will call for more information, some people will call to express
irritation about being “sold” something, and some people will simply be confused as to
what this is all about. Elderly customers in particular will probably have a lot of questions
about what the program entails.
11. risk or concern associated with a new program – minimal track history with the USP
program.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 11
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, made as of _____________________, 2012, between the CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and UTILITY SERVICE
PARTNERS PRIVATE LABEL, INC. D/B/A SERVICE LINE WARRANTIES OF
AMERICA, a Delaware corporation (“SLWA”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, SLWA provides affordable utility service line warranties to consumers; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of SLWA offering its external sewer and external water
line warranties (the “Warranties”) at a discounted rate during its twice-yearly marketing
campaigns to the residents of the City, the City has agreed to cooperate with SLWA in marketing
SLWA’s services to City’s residents and homeowners (the “Residents”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants the parties agree as
follows:
1. City hereby grants to SLWA a non-exclusive license to use City’s name and logos
on letterhead and marketing materials to be sent to the Residents from time to time, and to be
used in advertising, all at SLWA’s sole cost and expense and subject to City’s prior review and
approval. City agrees to conduct such review within twenty (20) days of its receipt thereof.
2. As consideration for such license, SLWA shall offer the Warranties to the
Residents at a discounted rate during its twice-yearly marketing campaigns as set forth in the
attached pricing matrix.
3. The term of this marketing agreement will be for one (1) year from the date of the
execution of this Agreement and this Agreement will then renew on an annual basis unless one
of the parties gives the other advance written notice of at least sixty (60) days that it does not
intend to renew this marketing agreement. City may terminate this marketing agreement thirty
(30) days after giving notice to SLWA that SLWA is in material breach of this Agreement if
such breach is not cured during such thirty day period. After such time, neither party will have
any further obligations to the other and the license described herein will terminate.
4. SLWA shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its elected officials,
appointed officials, and emoployees from and against any loss, claim, liability, damage, or
expense that any of them may suffer, sustain or become subject to in connection with any third
party claim (each a “Claim”) resulting from any conduct of SLWA in connection with, arising
out of or by reason of this marketing agreement, provided that the applicable indemnitee notifies
SLWA of any such Claim within a time that does not prejudice the ability of SLWA to defend
against such Claim. Any indemnitee hereunder may participate in its, his, or her own defense,
but will be responsible for all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in connection
with such participation in such defense.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 12
5. SLWA agrees to maintain a minimum of One Million and No/100 Dollars
($1,000,000.00) of coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy. SLWA
agrees that City shall be named asd an additional insured under such policy of insurance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first above.
UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS
PRIVATE LABEL, INC.
By:
Philip E. Riley, Jr.
President and CEO
By:
Brad H. Carmichael
Vice President
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY: _________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
AND: ________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 13
Meeting Date: August 6, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to
Conditional Use Permits, and to set the second reading for August 20, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to make changes to the City Code to consolidate all Conditional Use
Permit regulations into one subsection of the Zoning Ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
The proposed ordinance amendment is essentially a house-keeping item to make the CUP and
Variance requirements easier to find in our ordinance and easier to understand. There are no
changes to the actual CUP or Variance standards or requirements, only a consolidation of all the
CUP and Variance requirements into a single section of the ordinance.
Consolidation:
The Zoning Ordinance has regulations pertaining to CUPs divided into two sections of the
Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-33 covers the application and review process, while Section 36-
365 establishes the criteria by which the City will review a CUP application. The proposed draft
moves the criteria found in 36-365 to Section 36-33, so that all CUP review, process and criteria
are now under one section.
The ordinance also consolidates all enforcement regulations into the existing Section 36-37
pertaining to enforcement of the zoning regulations.
As recommended by the Planning Commission, staff also consolidated all of the criteria for
reviewing variances into one subsection of the variance section of the code (Section 36-34(a)(2)).
The consolidation also requires many other sections of the code to be amended to correct
references to the CUP section of the code.
Redundancy:
The CUP sections of the ordinance still refer to the process for reviewing and applying for
variances. A new section of the ordinance was adopted in January, 2012 that specifically details
the process for applying for and reviewing variances. Therefore, these sections in the CUP
regulations are redundant and need to be removed.
Planning Commission Action:
A public hearing was held at the July 18, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. No comments
were received. The Commission voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the ordinance.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 3, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
115, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 223, 243, 244, 365
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-20-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 3, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
115, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 223, 243, 244, 365 are hereby amended by deleting stricken
language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Chapter 36
ZONING
Table of Contents
***
Article II. Administration and Enforcement
Sec. 36-31. Interpretation; procedures.
Sec. 36-32. Registration of land use.
Sec. 36-33. Application and review process for Cconditional Uuse Ppermits and variances.
Sec. 36-34. Variances Amendments.
Sec. 36-35. Amendments Reimbursement for city costs.
Sec. 36-36. Reimbursement Continuation of certain special permits.
Sec. 36-37. Continuation of certain special permitsEnforcement.
Sec. 36-38. EnforcementPublic hearings.
Sec. 36-39. Public hearingsCompliance with the comprehensive plan.
Sec. 36-40. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Secs. 36-410--36-70. Reserved.
***
Article V. Special Provisions
***
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 3
Sec. 36-365. Reserved. Standards and conditions for conditional use permits.
***
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
***
Sec. 36-3. Rules of construction.
***
(d) Jurisdiction and authority.
(1) This chapter is enacted under the authority granted to the city in state statutes. If those statutes
are amended to restrict or enlarge the authority delegated to the city, those amendments shall be
incorporated into this chapter.
(2) This chapter governs the use of all land and structures in the city unless such regulation is
specifically preempted by state or federal statutes or regulations. Any action by the city to extend the time
limit to process a zoning application in accordance with Minn. Stat 15.99, as amended, may be taken
administratively without city council approval.
(3) This chapter governs the use of all land and structures in the city unless such regulation is
specifically preempted by state or federal statutes or regulations.
***
Sec. 36-33. Application and review process for Cconditional Uuse Ppermits (CUP) and variances.
(a) Application of section provisions. This section shall apply to all conditional use permits and
variances. Findings and Purpose: The city council may grant conditional use permits by resolution
for uses and purposes authorized by this chapter, and may impose such additional conditions and
safeguards in permits as may be necessary to protect the comprehensive plan and the general purpose and
intent of this chapter.
(b) General provisions.Standards and conditions. A conditional use permit shall be issued when
the following findings are made:
(1) Consistency with plans. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives,
land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation
strategies of the comprehensive plan.
(2) Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and
values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
(3) Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code
and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 4
(4) Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
(5) Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans
prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer
registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city
council.
(6) Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water
plans.
(7) Conditions specific to site. It complies with all conditions imposed by the City Council and
listed within the conditional use permit.
(c) General Provisions:
(1) Conditional Use Permit required. No building or land shall be used or occupied for a use which
requires a conditional use permit until the permit has been issued.
(2) Compliance to conditions required. No building or land shall be used or occupied for which a
conditional use permit has been issued unless that use complies with all of the conditions of that
conditional use permit.
(3) Referral to planning commission. The request for a conditional use permit shall be referred to
the planning commission for a public hearing and to study the effect of the proposed use on the
comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood. The planning
commission shall recommend to the city council whether to grant or deny the conditional use
permit request and the conditions which should be attached to the conditional use permit, if the
recommendation is to approve the request.
(4) Action without planning commission recommendation. If the planning commission does not
transmit a recommendation to the City Council in a timely manner, then the city council may
take action on the request without a recommendation of the planning commission.
(5) Reimbursement. The conditional use permit shall become valid after the applicant has paid to
the city all fees due according to section 36-36.
(6) Building permits. Building permits shall not be issued for any property for which the city
council has approved a conditional use permit until the applicant has met the conditions of the
permit, paid to the city all required fees, has signed an assent form, and has filed with the city
clerk any required letter of credit or other security.
(7) Major Amendment. A major amendment to an existing conditional use permit is required when
the proposed changes or modifications will have an effect on required parking, required yards,
floor area ratios, ground floor area ratios, signage, building height, density, covenants or
agreements required by the original conditional use permit, or changes in conditional use permits
issued in the FW, FF or FP districts. A major amendment shall follow the same process required
for an initial CUP application.
(8) Minor Amendment. Any amendment to an existing conditional use permit not considered a
major amendment as defined above may be approved by the City Council. The minor
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 5
amendment shall follow the same process as an initial CUP application, except that a public
hearing and planning commission review is not required.
(d) Process:
(1) Application. All applications for conditional use permits shall be initiated by, or with the
written consent of, the owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of:
a. An application and payment of required application fee.
b. A complete and accurate legal description of the property.
c. A written explanation of the request addressing the development proposal and the criteria
listed in section (b) above.
d. A survey of the property showing all property lines, topography, structures and easements.
Additional drawings showing site conditions and improvements as needed to show
compliance with city regulations.
e. A dimensioned plan showing landscaping, parking, lighting, and other site design
elements required to show compliance with City Code.
f. A dimensioned plan showing drainage, stormwater and utility plans prescribing locations
for city water, sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone, and cable lines, natural
gas mains, and other service facilities prepared by a professional civil engineer registered
in the state and adopted.
g. A dimensioned plan showing the floor plan and elevations for all existing and proposed
structures.
h. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for the conditional use permit and all lands
within 350 feet of the boundaries of the property and two copies of the names and
addresses of the owners of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the county
auditor or other appropriate records.
i. Any other materials required by the city.
(21) Hearings.
a. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing for all initial conditional use
permit applications and major amendments to existing conditional use permits.No
conditional use permit shall be issued until a public hearing on the request has been held
by the planning commission.
b. No variance approval shall be adopted until a public hearing on the request has been held
by the board of zoning appeals.
bc. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official
newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 6
cd. A notice of these hearings shall also be mailed at least ten days before the date of the
hearing to each owner of the affected property and owners of record of property located
wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property for which the conditional use permit or
variance has been requested.
de. The person responsible for mailing the notice shall use the records of the county auditor's
office or other appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners
entitled to written notice. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to
which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the person giving the notice and shall be
made a part of the record of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to
individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings
provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with this section.
(32) Conditions and modifications.
a. The city council may impose reasonable conditions oin any conditional use permit and
may, at any time at its election or upon application by the property owner, modify the
conditions of an existing conditional use permit as changing circumstances warrant. No
modification of an existing conditional use permit may be made until a public hearing has
been held by the planning commission in the manner outlined in section 36-34(b)(2)
except that minor amendments shall require only notice to the holder of the permit and
approval of the city council.
(4) Modifications. The City Council may initiate a modification of an existing conditional use
permit. The modification shall follow the same process as required for a conditional use
permit.
b. A minor amendment shall not be granted for proposed changes or modifications which
will have an effect on required parking, required yards, floor area ratios, ground floor area
ratios, signage, building height, density, covenants or agreements required by the original
conditional use permit, or changes in conditional use permits issued in the FW, FF or FP
districts.
c. The board of zoning appeals may impose reasonable conditions in any variance approval
and may, at any time at its election or upon application of the property owner, modify the
conditions of a variance approval as changing circumstances warrant. No modifications of
an existing variance may be made until a public hearing has been held by the board of
zoning appeals in the manner outlined in subsection (b)(1)b. of this section.
(53) Assent form. A No conditional use permit or variance with imposed conditions is not valid until
the applicant has signed an assent form and the approved exhibits which acknowledge the terms
and conditions under which the conditional use permit or variance is granted, agreeing to
observe them.
(64) Filing. The resolution approving a conditional use permit, variance, or modification of a
conditional use permit or variance shall include the legal description of the property for which
the permit or variance was issued. A certified copy of the resolution shall be filed with the
appropriate filing officer at the county recorder or county registrar of titles.
(5) Abandonment, revocation and cancellation of permit or variance. If the zoning administrator
determines that any holder of an existing variance or conditional use permit has violated any of
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 7
the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the permit or variance, or
has violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation, the variance or
conditional use permit granted by the city may be revoked and canceled by the following
process:
a. The zoning administrator shall notify the holder in writing of the violation. The notice
shall be given in person or by depositing a copy of it in the United States post office or a
depository designated by the United States Postal Service for the deposit of mail,
addressed to the address of the applicant stated on the original application. Notice shall
also be served upon the occupant of the premises for which the conditional use permit or
variance was issued or, if no occupant can be found, notice shall be posted in a
conspicuous place upon such premises. Service shall be effective on the date of mailing,
personal service or posting.
b. The notice shall state that after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, the
conditional use permit or variance is terminated without further action or proceeding.
(6) No construction required after one year. All variances and conditional use permits shall be
revoked and canceled if one year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution
granting the conditional use permit or variance and the holder of the conditional use permit or
variance has failed to make actual use of the premises according to the provisions contained in
the permit or variance.
(7) New construction required after one year. All variances and conditional use permits shall be
revoked and canceled after one year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution
granting the variance or conditional use permit if a new structure or alteration or substantial
repair of an existing building is required by the conditional use permit or variance and the holder
has failed to complete the work within that year, unless a valid building permit authorizing such
work has been issued and work is progressing in an orderly way.
(8) Occurrence of certain events. If the holder of a conditional use permit or variance fails to make
actual use of vacant lands or lands and structures which were existing when the permit or
variance was issued and no new structure, alteration, or substantial repair to existing buildings
was required; or if a new structure was required by the conditional use permit or variance and no
building permit has been obtained, the conditional use permit or variance shall be revoked and
canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. A change in the zoning use district for such lands is made by amendment to the ordinance
from which this chapter is derived by the city council.
b. Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any part of the premises
described in the conditional use permit or variance.
c. The use described in the conditional use permit or variance becomes an illegal activity
under the laws of the United States of America or this state.
d. Title to all or part of land described in such conditional use permit or variance is forfeited
to the state for nonpayment of taxes.
e. The person to whom the conditional use permit or variance was issued files a written
statement in which that person states that the conditional use permit or variance has been
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 8
abandoned. The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution number
under which the conditional use permit or variance was granted.
f. The premises for which the conditional use permit or variance was issued are used by the
person to whom the permit or variance was issued in a manner inconsistent with the
provisions of such conditional use permit or variance.
g. The building or structure for which a variance or conditional use permit was granted is
removed.
(9) Abandonment of existing conditional use permits and variances. The one-year period used in
this chapter to compute time to determine whether a conditional use permit or a variance has
been canceled or revoked shall begin with the date of adoption of the resolution granting the
conditional use permit or variance.
(10) Abandonment if conditions not met or use discontinued.
a. Any conditional use permit granted by the city is revoked and canceled if all conditions
imposed in the conditional use permit are not satisfied within a time specified by the city
council or if the approved use is discontinued for a period of more than two years.
b. Any variance granted by the board of zoning appeals is revoked and canceled if all
conditions imposed in the variance are not satisfied within the time specified by the board
of zoning appeals or if the approved use is discontinued for a period of more than two
years.
c. If an extension is requested by the owner of the property on which a conditional use
permit has been discontinued prior to the end of two years, the city council may consider
or approve, by resolution, such requested extension if the city council finds the use to be
acceptable and a satisfactory reason exists to grant an extension; however, such extension
shall not be granted if it would allow the discontinued use to extend more than an
additional three years beyond the original two years.
(711) Extension of time. The city council may grant an one or more 90-day extensions of time beyond
the termination date for any conditional use permit. The board of zoning appeals may grant an
extension of time not to exceed one year for any variance. The fee to process an extension
request shall be set by resolution adopted by the city council establishing such fees. At the time
the extension is granted, the city council or the board of zoning appeals may waive the fee and
direct the return of a part or all of it to the applicant. In considering whether to refund any of
the fee charged, the city shall determine whether it has incurred additional expense in
considering the request for extension. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the city
manager before the termination date of the conditional use permit or variance, but such request
shall not be filed more than 21 days before the termination date.
(812) Denial; appeal of variance decision.
a. Conditional use permits may be denied by resolution of the city council. A resolution of
denial shall constitute a finding by the city council that the conditions required for
approval do not exist.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 9
b. Variance applications may be denied by resolution of board of zoning appeals. A
resolution of denial shall constitute a finding by the board of zoning appeals that the
conditions required for approval do not exist. Any owner of the affected property or an
owner of property situated either wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property
may appeal the decision of the board of zoning appeals to the city council following the
procedures in subsection (d)(6) of this section. The appeal must be submitted in writing to
the planning director within ten calendar days after the date of the board of zoning appeals
decision.
c. Any person who is denied a variance by the board of zoning appeals or whose appeal is
denied by the city council may not reapply for the same variance within 24 months from
the denial date unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have
changed. A change in the physical conditions would include, but is not limited to, a
division or combination of the land or a taking of part of the land for public purpose.
(13) Duration and enforcement. Conditional use permits and variances shall remain in effect as long
as the conditions stated in the permit or variance are observed. Failure to comply with those
conditions results in termination of the conditional use permit or variance.
(c) Conditional use permits. The city council may grant conditional use permits for uses and
purposes authorized by this chapter by resolution and may impose such additional conditions and
safeguards in permits as may be necessary to protect the comprehensive plan and the general purpose and
intent of this chapter. Applications for conditional use permits shall include a site plan and such other
information required by the city which shall be processed in the following way:
(1) Referral to planning commission. The request for a conditional use permit shall be referred to
the planning commission for study of the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan
and on the character and development of the neighborhood. The planning commission shall
recommend to the city council whether to grant or deny the conditional use permit request and,
if the recommendation is to approve the request, the conditions which should be attached to the
conditional use permit.
(2) Issuance. In considering an application for a conditional use permit under this chapter, the city
council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the
effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants of surrounding
lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, values of
property in the surrounding area, and the objectives of the comprehensive plan. If it shall
determine, by resolution, that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that it is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan, the city council may grant such
permits and may impose conditions and safeguards in the permit as a condition of its approval.
(3) Action without planning commission recommendation. If no recommendation is transmitted by
the planning commission within 60 days after the application for conditional use permit has
been referred to the commission, the city council may take action on the request without a
recommendation of the planning commission.
(4) Conditional use permits. No application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this
chapter shall be filed until the applicant has paid the city treasurer the application fee adopted by
the city council.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 10
(5) Assent forms. No conditional use permit shall become valid until the applicant has signed an
assent form according to subsection (b)(3) of this section.
(6) Reimbursement. No conditional use permit shall become valid until the applicant has paid to the
city all fees due according to section 36-35(b).
(7) Building permits. No building permit shall be issued for any property for which the city council
has approved a conditional use permit until the applicant has paid to the city all required fees,
has signed an assent form, and has filed with the city clerk any required letter of credit or other
security.
Sec. 36-34. (d)Variances. The board of zoning appeals The City may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance in accordance with this section and state law.
(a) Standards and Provisions. While reviewing a variance application, the City shall consider the
strict application of the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state
law.
(1) Variances are not permitted for:
a. Any land use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone
where the affected person’s land is located.
b. Floor elevations lower than the flood protection elevation in the floodplain district.
(2) The City may grant variances upon consideration of the following:
a.(2) The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of this chapter upon consideration of the effect of the proposed variance upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community. Variances shall only be permitted:
ba. When The request is they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance and,
cb. When the The request is variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
d.(3) The Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,”
as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
1.a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the
zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for
dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to
setbacks and height limitations in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning
ordinance;
2b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and
3c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 11
4d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical
difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
(4) The City board shall consider the following criteria when evaluating a variance request:
ea. There are cCircumstances unique to the property include the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property.
fb. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
gc. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
hd. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
(35) The City board may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be
directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
(46) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06,
subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance.
(57) Variances involving a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain. If the application for a variance
involves property within a floodway, flood fringe and floodplain district, then a copy of all
decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action. In determining whether the property owner is
proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, the following additional variance criteria
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied:
a. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway
if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
b. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient
cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not
result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with
existing local laws or ordinances.
c. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
d. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 12
e. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the
applicant for a variance that: (i) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below
the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to
amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and (ii) Such construction below
the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification
shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a
record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such
variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
(b8) Process. A request for a variance shall be considered by the board of zoning appeals. The board
of zoning appeals shall consider the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and the
requirements of all applicable state law. The city council will act as the board of zoning appeals for
variance requests made in conjunction with a conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision.
The planning commission shall hold the public hearing on the variance request, review the variance
request along with the conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision process, and report its
findings and recommendations to the city council.
(1)a. Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the written consent of,
the owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of:
a1. An application and fee payment.
b2. A written explanation of the request addressing the variance criteria in sections (2), (3)
and (4) above.
c3. A survey of the property showing all property lines, existing and proposed structures and
easements.
d4. A dimensioned plan showing the floor plan and elevations for all existing and proposed
structures.
e5. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands within 350 feet of
the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners of the lands in
the area as they appear on the records of the county auditor or other appropriate records.
f6. Any other materials required by the city.
(2)b. Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public hearing
before the board of zoning appeals for the any variance request within 45 days after the
application for a variance is received by the city. The Zoning Administrator shall submit by
mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed
variances(s) occurring within a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing.
(3)c. Hearings. The public hearing shall be held only after the required notice has been given. The
board of zoning appeals or planning commission shall hear arguments at the hearing for and
against the proposed variance and it may continue that hearing from time to time if a continued
hearing it is reasonably required. Final vote on the proposed variance shall be taken within 30
days after the public hearing is closed.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 13
(4)d. Appeal to the city council. Any owner of affected property or any owner of property situated
wholly or partly within 350 feet of the affected property may appeal the decision of the board of
zoning appeals to the city council. The appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the city
clerk within ten calendar days after the date of the board of zoning appeals’ decision. The
required fee shall be paid to the city treasurer when the appeal request is filed. When an appeal
is received by the city, the applicant will be notified of the date and time the city council will
hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard until the city has notified all property owners within
350 feet of the subject property of the date scheduled for the appeal hearing. If no appeal is
made within the ten-day period, the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall be final. If an
appeal is taken from the decision of the board of zoning appeals, the city council shall hear the
appeal within 30 days of the filing of the appeal unless that period is extended with consent of
the appellant. The city council may reverse a decision of the board of zoning appeals by an
affirmative vote of the majority of its full membership. The city council shall render a decision
within 30 days concluding the appeal hearing. A decision of the board of zoning appeals shall
not become effective until the end of the appeal period has expired. If an appeal is filed before
the end of the appeal period the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall not become
effective until the city council has rendered a decision on the appeal.
(5) Any person who is denied a variance by the board of zoning appeals or whose appeal is denied
by the city council may not reapply for the same variance within 24 months from the denial date
unless the physical conditions of the property or land in question have changed. A change in the
physical conditions would include, but is not limited to, a division or combination of the land or
a taking of part of the land for public purpose.
(e) Refund of fees. If any application for a conditional use permit, variance, zoning amendment,
PUD, continued special permit, Comprehensive Plan amendment, subdivision, or vacation is withdrawn
in writing by the applicant or is not processed by the city for any other reason so that a final decision is
not made by the city, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the application fees paid to the city according
to the following provisions:
(1) 75 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the deadline for rescinding the public hearing publication.
(2) 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the request has been considered by the planning commission or
board of zoning appeals.
(3) 25 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the city council.
Sec. 36-354. Amendments.
***
Sec. 36-365. Reimbursement for city costs.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to:
(a) Purpose.(1) The purpose of this section is to Pprovide a procedure to reimburse the city for its
cost of review, analysis, and evaluation of development proposals, conditional use permits,
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 14
comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments, and enforcement of the ordinance from which this
chapter is derived in cases where, due to the level of complexity of the application under consideration,
excessive costs beyond those normally incurred by the city as a result of the administration of the
ordinance from which this chapter is derived are incurred. The excess costs result from problems
presented in review, analysis, and evaluation which necessitate intensive investigation and research. The
intent of this section is to ensure an adequate level of review of these cases and to ensure that the adverse
effects of development on the city are minimized and compliance with goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan and this chapter are obtained.
(2) Provide a procedure and criteria to reimburse to applicants a portion of the fees and costs
already paid to the city, but not needed to cover the costs and expenses incurred by the city in
reviewing their application or request.
(b) Reimbursement of city expenses.
(1b) Conditions where reimbursement authorized. The city may, in its sole discretion, require
reimbursement of city costs under the following conditions:
a.(1) When the city manager finds multiple planning commission and city council meetings are
required to review a particular item and additional staff time is expended on that item
subsequent to the initial meeting.
b.(2) When the city manager finds it necessary to retain consultants and experts to review requests
and advise its staff of specific impacts of a proposal, including but not limited to impacts on
traffic, utilities, drainage, and aesthetic or environmental characteristics of the community.
c.(3) When it is necessary for the city attorney to review a proposal.
d.(4) When the city manager finds that other extraordinary costs are incurred by the city as a
result of the administration of this chapter.
(2c) Procedure.
a.(1) The city shall notify the applicant that the city will incur additional costs at the earliest
possible time and, if possible, provide the applicant with an estimate of the expected
additional cost.
b.(2) The applicant shall pay the estimated additional cost to the city by certified check or bank
money order. If the amount paid to the city initially is insufficient to cover all city costs, the
additional amount shall be billed to the applicant. Any money which has not been used to
pay additional costs after the applicant's request has been processed shall be refunded to the
applicant.
c.(3) No certificate of occupancy for any project subject to this section shall be issued until all
money owing to the city has been received.
d.(4) All costs billed under this section shall be based on the actual cost to the city of staff time,
overhead, material costs, and actual billings from consultants, experts and attorneys.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 15
(c) Refund of fees. If any application for a conditional use permit, variance, zoning amendment,
PUD, continued special permit, Comprehensive Plan amendment, subdivision, or vacation is withdrawn
in writing by the applicant or is not processed by the city for any other reason so that a final decision is
not made by the city, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the application fees paid to the city according
to the following provisions:
(1) 75 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the deadline for rescinding the public hearing publication.
(2) 50 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the request has been considered by the planning commission or
board of zoning appeals.
(3) 25 percent of the application fee and 100 percent of the recording fee shall be refunded if the
request is withdrawn before the request is considered by the city council.
(4) Any portion of additional fees paid to reimburse costs incurred by the city that exceeds the costs
already or expected to be incurred by the city.
Sec. 36-376. Continuation of certain special permits.
***
Sec. 36-387. Enforcement.
(a) Compliance with regulations.
***
(1) Compliance required. All persons, firms, corporations, and voluntary associations shall comply
with the regulations and conditions contained in this chapter. Any person, firm, corporation, or
voluntary association who fails to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter, or builds or
alters a building in violation of violates any detailed statement, condition, or plan imposed in the
manner permitted by this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
a. The city may enforce any provision of this chapter by issuing a citation, or by mandamus,
injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction and
may require reimbursement of all legal fees required for the enforcement of any provision
of this chapter from persons found guilty of a violation.
b. The city, at its sole discretion, may enter into mediation regarding issues in the
enforcement of this chapter, provided that mediation shall not be pursued where the issue
involves a specific dimensional or performance requirement. Mediation may be pursued
when the issue involves an interpretation of the application of chapter requirements.
Mediation shall not be substituted for a variance proceeding and the city shall not agree
to be bound by the mediation process when the result would be an action inconsistent
with the intent of this chapter.
c. Each day that a violation occurs shall be considered a separate violation.
(2) Approved land uses. Land shall be used only for the purpose permitted in the district in which
the land is located.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 16
(3) No building shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, moved, structurally altered, or
used for a use unless it is a use permitted in the district in which the building is located.
(34) Height limits. No building shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, nor structurally
altered to be higher than the height limit established for the district in which the building is
located.
(45) Area regulations. No building shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, nor
structurally altered unless it conforms to the area regulations of the use district in which the
building is located. A lot shall not be divided nor shall any structure be erected or altered to
reduce the floor area ratio below that required by this chapter for the district in which the lot is
located.
(56) Parking and loading facilities. No building shall be erected or structurally altered unless the site
on which it is located provides the off-street parking and loading facilities required by this
chapter.
(67) Encroachments. The yards, parking spaces, designed outdoor recreation area, and open lot area
required by this chapter for buildings existing at the time of adoption of the ordinance from
which this chapter is derived or for any building erected after its adoption, shall not be
encroached upon or considered as part of the yard, parking space, designed outdoor recreation
area, or open lot area required for any other building unless joint use of parking or a
combination of yards or designed outdoor recreation area or open lot area is specifically
authorized by this chapter. No lot shall be divided nor shall any structure be erected or altered to
reduce the floor area ratio below that required by this chapter for the district in which the lot is
located.
(78) Building and lot limitations. Every building erected or structurally altered after the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall be located on a lot as defined in
section 36-4 and in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot, except as
authorized by this chapter.
(9) No building or land shall be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy has been issued
authorizing its use.
(10) No building or land shall be used or occupied for a use which requires a conditional use permit
until the conditional use permit has been issued.
(11) No building or land shall be used or occupied for which a conditional use permit has been
issued unless that use complies with all of the conditions of that conditional use permit.
(9) Abandonment, revocation and cancellation of permit or variance. If the zoning administrator
determines that any holder of an existing variance or conditional use permit has violated any of
the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the permit or variance, or
has violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation, the variance or
conditional use permit granted by the city may be revoked and canceled by the following
process:
a. The zoning administrator shall notify the holder in writing of the violation. The notice
shall be given in person or by United States Postal Service addressed to the address of the
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 17
applicant stated on the original application. Notice shall also be served upon the occupant
of the premises for which the conditional use permit or variance was issued or, if no
occupant can be found, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place upon such premises.
Notice shall be effective on the date of mailing, personal service or posting.
b. The notice shall state that after the expiration of ten days from the date of the notice, the
conditional use permit or variance is terminated without further action or proceeding.
(10) New construction required within two years. All variances and conditional use permits shall be
revoked and canceled after one year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution
granting the variance or conditional use permit if a new structure or alteration or substantial
repair of an existing building is required by the conditional use permit or variance and the
holder has failed to complete the work within that year, unless a valid building permit
authorizing such work has been issued and work is progressing in an orderly way.
(11) Occurrence of certain events. If the holder of a conditional use permit or variance fails to make
actual use of vacant lands or lands and structures which were existing when the permit or
variance was issued and no new structure, alteration, or substantial repair to existing buildings
was required; or if a new structure was required by the conditional use permit or variance and
no building permit has been obtained, the conditional use permit or variance shall be revoked
and canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. A change in the zoning use district for such lands is made by amendment to the ordinance
from which this chapter is derived by the city council.
b. Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any part of the premises
described in the conditional use permit or variance.
c. The use described in the conditional use permit or variance becomes an illegal activity
under the laws of the United States of America or this state.
d. Title to all or part of land described in such conditional use permit or variance is forfeited
to the state for nonpayment of taxes.
e. The person to whom the conditional use permit or variance was issued files a written
statement in which that person states that the conditional use permit or variance has been
abandoned. The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution number
under which the conditional use permit or variance was granted.
f. The premises for which the conditional use permit or variance was issued are used by the
person to whom the permit or variance was issued in a manner inconsistent with the
provisions of such conditional use permit or variance.
g. The building or structure for which a variance or conditional use permit was granted is
removed.
(12) Abandonment if conditions not met or use discontinued.
a. Any conditional use permit granted by the city is revoked and canceled if all conditions
imposed in the conditional use permit are not satisfied within a time specified by the city
council or if the approved use is discontinued for a period of more than two years.
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 18
b. Any variance granted by the board of zoning appeals is revoked and canceled if all
conditions imposed in the variance are not satisfied within the time specified by the board
of zoning appeals or if the approved use is discontinued for a period of more than two
years.
c. If an extension is requested by the owner of the property on which a conditional use
permit has been discontinued prior to the end of two years, the city council may consider
or approve, by resolution, such requested extension if the city council finds the use to be
acceptable and a satisfactory reason exists to grant an extension; however, such extension
shall not be granted if it would allow the discontinued use to extend more than an
additional three years beyond the original two years.
(132) Plan change not required. In the event the City adopts an amendment to this Chapter that
results in a building, land use or conditional use permit becoming non-conforming prior to the
commencement of construction of the building, then changes to the plan will not be required if
construction begins within 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance amending this
chapter. If, however, building construction is voluntarily discontinued by the permit holder for
a period of 90 days, then any further construction shall conform to the provisions of the
amendment.
If a building permit has been granted or if plans were on file with the director of inspectional services
before the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived or any amendment
adopted after that effective date or if a conditional use permit has been approved, the provision
of this chapter or any later amendment shall not require a change in the plans, or in the size or
use of the land if the construction described in the permit or those plans is started within 90
days of the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived or later
amendment. If, however, building construction is voluntarily discontinued before completion of
construction of the structure described in the permit or the plans by the permit holder for a
period of 90 days, any further construction shall conform to the provisions of this chapter or the
later amendment.
(143) Uses superseding ordinance. A use which violates the provisions of the ordinance which this
chapter supersedes shall not be validated by the adoption of the ordinance from which this
chapter is derived unless it is permitted by this chapter's provisions, nor shall this chapter
extend any temporary use beyond the expiration date of a temporary permit granted prior to the
effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived.
***
Sec. 36-398. Public hearings.
***
Sec. 36-4039. Compliance with the comprehensive plan.
***
Secs. 36-410--36-70. Reserved.
***
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 19
Sec. 36-115. Land use by zoning district.
***
(d) Land uses permitted as a conditional use. Land uses listed as "permitted as a conditional use"
are permitted subject to all the requirements applicable to uses permitted by right plus all general
conditional use and any additional requirements applicable to that particular land use contained in
divisions 3 through 6 of this article and those general conditions contained under section 36-3365(b).
Each conditional use application shall be considered a unique situation and shall not be construed as
precedents for similar requests. Further conditions may be imposed on any conditional use by the
planning commission or city council in response to special conditions of the use or site.
***
Sec. 36-151. POS park and open space district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any POS district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all general conditions provided in section 36-3365 and with the specific conditions
imposed in this subsection.
***
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-1 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-3365 and with the specific conditions
imposed in this subsection.
***
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-2 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-3365(b) regarding conditional use
permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection and such other conditions as may be
imposed by the city council under section 36-34(b).
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district.
***
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 20
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-3 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the residential
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162, all the general conditions provided in section
36-3365 regarding conditional use permits, and the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and
such other conditions as may be imposed by the city council under subsection (b) of section 36-34.
***
Sec. 36-166. R-4 multiple-family residence district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-4 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-3365 regarding conditional use permits,
and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d).
***
Sec. 36-167. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-C district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the residential
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162, the general conditions of section 36-3367
regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection as follows:
***
Sec. 36-223. O office district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an O district shall be used
for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the office
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-222 and all those general conditions provided in
section 36-3367 regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection (d).
***
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall be used
for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the industrial
restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242 and all of the general conditions provided in
section 36-3367 regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection (d).
***
Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district.
***
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 21
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-G district shall be used
for the following uses except by conditional use permit. Those uses shall comply with the requirements of
all the general conditions provided in section 36-242 and section 36-3365 regarding conditional use
permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d).
***
Sec. 36-365. Standards and conditions for conditional use permits.
(a) Conditional uses. The conditional uses shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan,
regulations, purposes and procedures of this chapter. The city council shall approve all conditional use
permits which are issued and may attach such conditions to any permit as shall be determined to be
necessary or convenient to better accomplish the intent of the comprehensive plan and this chapter and to
minimize the impact of the use on adjacent properties. The city council may consider the provisions
relating to the use of the land of any redevelopment plan or development district program approved
pursuant to state law, as amended from time to time, and may incorporate such provisions in a conditional
use permit when deemed necessary. Conditional uses shall be consistent with the general conditions listed
in subsection (b) of this section. Other more specific conditions for any use requiring a conditional use
permit may be included in this article which regulates use districts or may be imposed by the city as a part
of the conditional use permit if the topography or other characteristics of the land or the character of the
use or manner of operation of the use shall require them.
(b) General conditions. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the following findings are
made:
(1) It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations,
redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the
comprehensive plan.
(2) It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a
whole.
(3) It is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the zoning district in which the
conditional use is located.
(4) It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements
which are either existing or proposed.
(5) It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close
proximity to the conditional use.
(6) It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or
under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state
and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. These plans shall
be presented to the community development director with the application for the conditional use
permit. The community development director shall prepare a report for the city council
reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans.
(7) It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for city water, sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone, and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service
facilities prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 22
the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. These plans shall be presented to the
director of public works with the application for the conditional use permit. The director of
public works shall prepare a report for the city council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of
such plans.
(8) It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use permit when,
in the opinion of the city council, such additional conditions are necessary to protect the general
welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed
in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or
requirements in this chapter are insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in section 36-1.
In these circumstances, the city council may impose restrictions and conditions on the
conditional use permit which are more stringent than those set forth in this section and which are
consistent with the general conditions listed in this subsection (b).
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-20-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing July 18, 2012
First Reading August 6, 2012
Second Reading August 20, 2012
Date of Publication August 30, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect September 14, 2012
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council August 20, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of August 6, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Conditional Use Permits Page 23