HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/03/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 26, 2012
(Councilmember Spano & Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 9, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Community Health Initiative
3. 7:05 p.m. Environmental Input Discussion
4. 7:50 p.m. Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
5. 8:20 p.m. Business Park Zoning District
6. 8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
8. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
9. February 2012 Monthly Financial Report
10. Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
11. 2011 Lawful Gambling Ten Percent Contribution Fund Report
12. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
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 Date: March 26, 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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 9, 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on April 9, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 9, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 9, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 9, 2012
Study Session, April 9, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. HRC 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan (w/ Commission) – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Human Rights Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
3. PAC 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan (w/ Commission) – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Police Advisory Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
4. 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report (w/ Commission) – Community Development (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Housing Authority Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report.
5. Review City Housing Goals – Community Development (45 minutes)
Review the City Housing Goals developed through the Housing Summit process and adopted
by the City Council in 2006 and determine whether the goals are still relevant and consistent
with the Housing Directions developed by the City Council at the Council Workshop held in
January 2012.
6. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discuss revisions to the Outdoor Lighting Standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Solid Waste Collection Program – Public Works (45 minutes)
Follow-up discussion regarding a previous meeting discussion of the Solid Waste Collection
Program.
8. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
9. Westwood Villa HIA
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
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:
Community Health Initiative.
RECOMMEND ACTION:
Will Stockton and Marjorie Herdes from Mobius, Inc will provide the Council with an overview
of a proposed community health initiative and a process for moving forward. Staff is asking for
Council’s feedback on this partnership project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council have questions regarding the Community Health Initiative or need more
information?
• Does the Council support the City partnering with this initiative?
BACKGROUND:
The City has a strong history of collaborating with the School District, Park Nicollet and
TwinWest. The City worked with Mobius Inc. on the most recent Vision St. Louis Park process.
As we hear more and more about health care challenges and an interest in personal health and
well-being, it makes sense that we work with our partners and bring a health initiative to our
community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. The Partners will be seeking grant funding.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked directly to the Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is committed to
being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Proposal for Year of Health in St. Louis Park
Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
______________________________________________________________________________________ Mobius, Inc.: Partners for Strategic Change
phone 952.927.7141 web www.mobiusmodel.com email mobiusinc@mobiusmodel.com
TO: The Community Partners for Health: City of St. Louis
Park, Park Nicollet Health Services, St. Louis Park
School District, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce,
Children First St. Louis Park
FROM: Marjorie Herdes & Will Stockton, Mobius, Inc.
RE: Proposal for “Year of Health in St. Louis Park”
DATE: 3/21/2012
The five St. Louis Park Community Partners: The City of St. Louis Park, TwinWest
Chamber of Commerce, Park Nicollet Health Services, the School District and Children
First are inviting a community-wide initiative to improve the health of the residents and
the workforce in the City. The proud history of successful past initiatives, to improve the
quality of life in St. Louis Park, reflects a deep commitment to engage ever-increasing
numbers of citizens in improving the quality of life in their community. Past initiatives,
supported by the Community Partners, include the creation of Children First, an ongoing
initiative, and winner of 5 national awards, and two citywide vision processes; 1995 and
2005.
Much has already been accomplished by Park Nicollet to assess the health and healthcare
needs of the community. Professionals in health and healthcare are already reaching out
to citizens to take advantage of the many resources available to support their individual
health and wellbeing. The challenge is to find effective ways to engage more residents
and people who work in the community to respond to existing opportunities both to
improve their individual health and the health of their whole community.
This initiative responds locally to the nation-wide challenge to reform healthcare. The
purpose is to build the partnership among citizens and professionals to (1) make
measureable improvement in the health of the whole population, (2) improve the quality
of care for individuals, and (3) reduce the per capita cost of healthcare for all citizens.
The initiative also responds to the Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction, a
“Community that is Connected and Engaged.”
The first step will be a community-wide, daylong dialogue among health professionals
and citizens to identify citizen led initiatives for a “Year of Health in St. Louis Park.”
Mobius, Inc.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Health Initiative Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________ Mobius, Inc.: Partners for Strategic Change
phone 952.927.7141 web www.mobiusmodel.com email mobiusinc@mobiusmodel.com
Desired outcomes of the dialogue:
Improvement in health and wellbeing will be measured, in part, by the following results:
• A shared vision and priorities for action with clear measures for successful
improvement in the health of St. Louis Park as a community.
• More effective ways for health and healthcare professionals and citizens to access
and coordinate currently available resources.
• Engaged citizens, community-wide, working in partnerships with health and
healthcare professionals.
• Cross-generational partnerships for health
• Integrated use of social media and other web-based technologies to realize the
community vision.
The design for the first step of this initiative, a community-wide dialogue to improve
health and healthcare, is outlined below in terms of the role of the facilitators:
1. Design a daylong, community-wide dialogue among current community partners and
100-200 participants from key stakeholders groups to improve the health of the citizens
of St. Louis Park.
2. Design and facilitate meetings with the partner-leaders and facilitators of the dialogue to
prepare for their roles in the dialogue and to coordinate efforts to ensure the right balance
of stakeholder groups.
3. Coordinate with the City a registration process for participants in the dialogue, including
finding ways to invite and include community stakeholders that may not respond to
traditional invitations to participate. A representative balance of community voices will
be crucial for success.
4. Coordinate the partnership with TPT and the Community Partners
5. Facilitate the dialogue to include 100-200 citizens and professionals
6. Facilitate follow-up meetings with a steering group formed from participants to:
a. Coordinate the initiatives that emerge from the community-wide dialogue
b. Ensure effective communication
i. Among leaders of all initiatives
ii. With all participants, and
iii. With citizens of St. Louis Park, and
c. Expand the number of citizens and professionals participating in the ongoing
initiative.
7. Design and facilitate follow-up meetings with the community partners to report results to
date and propose appropriate next steps.
* * *
This draft proposal is offered as a part of a larger proposal to appropriate funders to
request financial support for other critical roles and resources to ensure the success of this
initiative.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Health Initiative Page 3
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
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:
Environmental Input Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is to assist the City Council study session discussion regarding public involvement in
the City’s environmental policies and initiatives.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to pursue this item further and, if so, how would it like staff to proceed?
BACKGROUND:
As part of the City Council’s workshop in January, 2012 staff was asked to bring to a study
session the topic of how the public could participate and provide input into the City’s
environmental policies and initiatives. Staff was also asked to provide background information
on the steps that were taken to determine whether the Police Advisory Commission should be
created. Information on both topic areas is provided in this report.
Public Input Regarding the Environment
To provide some background, this issue was a topic of discussion going back to 2007 and 2008
as part of the Strategic Direction the City Council adopted related to the environment.
Specifically the City Council identified the need to investigate “the need and purpose of an
energy and environmental commission” Below is information regarding past discussions by
Council on this topic:
• February 25, 2008 – Study Session – Discussed Strategic Direction related to the
Environment and the need for an energy/environmental commission.
• September 13, 2010 – Study Session - Environmental Activities Update.
• November 8, 2010 – Study Session - Process for Community Input on Environment.
February 25, 2008
The minutes on this item are as follows (staff report attached):
Council and staff discussed options on whether or not to continue to explore the need and
purpose for an energy/environmental commission and how best to do so.
Council looked at three different options:
Option A: Current system and number of commissions seems to be working well.
Council can create task forces for specific needs to address this area as they arise.
Option B: Expand existing scope of Park and Recreation Advisory Commission or
Planning Commission (or modify another commission) to also address
energy/environment along with their current duties.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Option C: Create a new commission. The focus could be Natural Resources, Energy,
Healthy or Clean Environment. For example, we can have a discussion and explore if
there is a role for “healthy” environment and advisory commissions and/or a stand-alone
energy commission and talk about the focus of that group.
The consensus of a majority of the City Council was that there was not a need at this time for a
new stand alone commission.
Mr. Harmening suggested staff provide a report on the environmental initiatives, incorporating a
limited duration task force to view and prioritize the community and staff recommendations for
following the Vision Strategic Direction. Council also suggested having each existing
commission look at what they do in compliance with being environmentally conscious.
September 13, 2010:
Per Council direction a presentation was provided by staff on the environmental initiatives and
activities of the City from 2008-2010. The meeting minutes are as follows (staff report
attached).
Ms Gohman presented the staff report and introduced the members of the City’s E-Group,
including Jamie Zwilling, Brian Hoffman, Scott Merkley, Scott Anderson, Jim Vaughan, Kathy
Larsen, Cindy Walsh, and Kevin Locke.
Mr. Zwilling presented an overview of his role as overall communications coordinator for the
work of the E-Group, including responsibility for the City’s website, media, public information
pieces, and the community at large. He stated that the City’s website has an environment section
which provides links to useful information pertaining to environmental initiatives. He stated
that staff follows the Vision Statement regarding environment and we incorporate it in all we do.
Mr. Hoffman presented an overview of his work on compliance and energy management,
including an audit analysis of the City’s existing facilities and an evaluation of the existing
building conditions to determine what energy improvements can be made. He indicated that
other areas of focus include the City’s equipment and fleet, indoor and outdoor air quality,
Radon awareness, and noise pollution.
Mr. Merkley presented an overview of his work on solid waste recycling. He stated that the
City’s 2009 garbage collection tonnages decreased 2.6% from 2008 and recycling increased by
2.5% from 2008. He advised the City participates in a recycling revenue sharing from with
Eureka whereby the City has received over $93,000 in revenue sharing from recycling; this
revenue is used to enhance the City’s recycling program and other related activities. He
discussed the Zero Waste event held at the Westwood Nature Center for Earth Day 2010 and
indicated that the City will be hosting two workshops in October regarding backyard
composting; other activities include working with the elementary schools to promote recycling, a
joint project with Eureka to create a promotional video regarding the Twin Cities Free Market.
Mr. Anderson presented an overview of his work on the City’s surface water management plan,
storm water pollution prevention plan, erosion control and groundwater remediation. He stated
other areas of focus include hazardous materials and spills and the City’s water wellhead
protection plan, which includes practices to protect the City’s source water and identifies
potential sources of contamination. He indicated that the first energy study was completed in
1989 on the City’s water treatment plants aimed at improving energy efficient operations
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
through the use of variance frequency drives; the study resulted in a decrease in kilowatts per
million gallons of 2,345 kw/mg in 1993 to 1,950 kw/mg in 2008.
Mr. Vaughan presented an overview of his work on education and natural resources
management, including property owner consultations, policy assistance and implementation,
community aesthetics, rain gardens, native vegetation, pesticides and fertilizers, protected
waters, compliance and wetlands. He discussed the City’s annual Arbor Day celebrations,
Beautify the Park program, Adopt a Garden program, Pick up the Park program, and the
various programs available at Westwood Nature Center.
Ms. Larsen presented an overview of her work on planning and incentives, including
environmental oversight and enhancement aimed at increasing environmental consciousness.
She stated that other areas of focus include decreasing dependence on cars, adoption by the City
of a green building policy, and implementation of an assistance program for green home
improvements.
Councilmember Ross asked how the City is actively working with residents that live on lakes to
educate them on erosion control and/or pollutants.
Mr. Vaughan stated that the City has educational materials available to residents on the
importance of buffer zones and use of native vegetation; the City also actively works with the
watershed district on these issues.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to see more focus on walk/bike initiatives. She
indicated she would also like to find ways to allow more citizen input into the overall process.
She indicated that there needs to be a venue or some way for residents to provide input, share
information with other residents, and discuss questions on environmental issues. She stated that
creating a way for residents to share ideas in an interactive fashion will help promote and
realize the City’s goal of environmental sustainability and stewardship.
Councilmember Sanger reiterated her suggestion that the Council consider appointing a
temporary environmental task force and requested that the Council have a further discussion
regarding this issue. She stated that there needs to be some sort of mechanism where residents
can talk to each other and collectively promote or address issues.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed his thanks to the E-Group members for their efforts on
behalf of the City. He stated his concern with adding another task force is the additional burden
to staff and added he was not in favor of a separate environmental commission. He stated
environmental work is part of everything we do in our work. He stated he would like to see
additional focus on recycling in the business community and to give consideration to a pilot
program at Park Nicollet or Methodist Hospital. He stated he would also like to see recycling
instituted for the City’s multi housing associations.
Councilmember Santa requested that Council receive historical information on its work with
respect to storm water, trails and sidewalks, the flood proofing program, Reilly Tar, and the
City’s efforts regarding forestry and Emerald Ash Borer.
Councilmember Ross stated that she agrees with Councilmember Finkelstein. She would also
like to see efforts made to increase awareness among the City’s bars and restaurants on
recycling and to encourage use of mass transit as it relates to the environment.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Councilmember Mavity stated she feels we are missing a venue for residents to give input and
this could be done in a variety of ways such as a survey, topical listening segments, or input on
the web.
Mayor Jacobs stated there are other ways of adding to how input is received such as a cable
show, web blog, or other social media.
It was the consensus to bring back to Council the discussion on a venue for residents to have
input on Energy or Environment in the Community.
November 8, 2010:
As directed by Council the topic of community input on environmental matters was discussed at
this study session. Below are the meeting minutes from this discussion (see attached staff report):
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that based on Council’s discussion in
September, questioned were raised about the need for some type of venue for the community to
be able to provide ideas, input, and feedback on environmental related issues, initiatives, and/or
policies.
Ms. Gothberg then facilitated a discussion regarding Council’s interest in gaining input from the
community on environmental issues.
Councilmember Mavity expressed her appreciation to staff for the helpful information that
demonstrates the breadth of what the City is currently doing as it relates to environmental issues.
She stated that she would like see something that promotes resident’s ability to communicate
information in an interactive fashion so that they can share ideas and information with one
another. She added that a key aspect is not that the City is giving information out or people
giving information to the City, but that is interactive in order for people to learn from one
another. She indicated she did not feel that a permanent structure should be put in place, but
rather something more fluid that allows residents to take ownership of the process. She
suggested creating an open forum where meetings are scheduled to discuss a specific topic.
Councilmember Ross stated she felt it was important to have multiple ways of communicating
with the City’s various audiences and expressed support for use of social media as well as a
venue where people can come and exchange ideas, etc.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the City has done a lot of good work on environmental
protection types of projects and the concern that was raised earlier is that there are a lot of
residents who are making suggestions and asking questions, but this appears to essentially be
one way communication and does not involve residents talking to each other. She indicated that
the Vision process includes a strategic goal for environmental issues and an interest that people
have in talking to each other about these issues. She noted that there was a suggestion to form a
temporary task force of residents and to task them with the question of figuring out the different
ways the City can get community members talking with each other and the Council and
providing ideas and recommendations about good projects for the City to consider. She added
this could be akin to the way the Police Advisory Commission was formed.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about forming a task force and felt it was
important to keep in mind the overlapping work of the Parks and Recreation Commission and
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
the Planning Commission with respect to environmental issues. He also expressed concern
about the additional burden a task force may have on City staff.
Councilmember Santa acknowledged Councilmember Finkelstein’s remarks and stated that the
City currently enjoys the significant expertise of staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and the Planning Commission as it relates to the environment and it will be important to utilize
that expertise in this process. She noted that people want to be able to talk to each other about
issues and there should be a place where people can access a clearinghouse for information,
while at the same time, letting people know what the City is doing and finding a way to
piggyback on that.
Councilmember Omodt stated that there are chat boards available for this type of information
sharing. He indicated he did not feel the City should put itself in the middle of this because it is
not productive and people may assume that the City will agree to spend money on their ideas.
He stated he would be in favor of utilizing some survey questions to gain input from residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she was interested in finding a way to jumpstart the
communication process for residents and to at least provide a venue for people to come together
and talk about environmental issues.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the City should use the expertise currently available to it and that
there is currently no central clearinghouse for residents to discuss environmental issues. He
supported the idea of hosting one or more meetings to discuss a specific topic and stated the
City’s website should also include information about what the City is currently doing as it
relates to the environment.
Councilmember Sanger stated that there is a lot to be gained by asking people for their input and
she would like to see a more structured way for finding out what is on people’s minds. She felt it
was important to invite people to comment on their perspectives on what the City can do better.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Vision process and strategic direction can be revisited if Council
desires to have a venue for a community dialogue. He indicated it will be very important to
manage community expectations and suggested extending the work of the Vision process by
convening an open forum-type meeting for residents. He added that a Council discussion would
also have to take place to discuss staffing implications.
Councilmember Omodt suggested that if there was consideration of an open-forum on the
environment, we should consider doing the open-forum for all four areas of Vision. They are all
important and we should check-back on all of them.
Mayor Jacobs noted that one of the things that Council promised as part of the Vision process
was to periodically check back with residents and let them know what the City and Council are
doing. He suggested this check-in could be made part of a larger community celebration.
Ms. Gothberg summarized Council’s discussion and stated the Council is desirous of utilizing a
myriad of ways of providing information on environmental issues to the public and should
provide a means for the City to hear from the public and vice versa, as well as a means for
interactive dialogue. She indicated that this information should include what has been done and
should be transmitted in a variety of ways, including cable television. She stated that Council
would also like some type of one-time public gathering in order to check in with residents on the
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
four areas of Vision. She noted that this information will be presented in a way that people
understand that the City and Council want to hear ideas and that does not provide any promise
that the City is going to do whatever is suggested, because it is important to respect staff and
financial considerations.
Mr. Harmening agreed that staff will prepare a recommendation for Council consideration.
Follow up note: Sessions were originally scheduled for a Vision check in with the community in
May, 2011. Due to other pressing issues, the check-in was postponed and subsequently
completed in early 2012. The session included checking on the environment per Council
direction.
How was the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) formed?
Bridget Gothberg was our staff member who helped with the discussions on PAC. She will be
present at the meeting to talk about how that process worked and assist with the discussion. In
general, this is how PAC evolved:
History of Policy Advisory Commission:
• 7/6/2000: Police Civil Service Commissioners endorsed the idea of a Citizen’s Advisory
Board.
• 2/5/2001: Council abolished the Police Civil Service Commission.
• 4/9/2001: Council discussed potential and parameters of a Police Advisory Commission.
Eventually Council decided on a task force to study the idea of having a Police Advisory
Commission. The City advertised for citizens to sit on a task force.
• 11/19/2001: Applications reviewed.
• 1/2/2002: Task Force members are appointed.
• 1/2002 – 10/2002: Task force presented a “Future Vision” around their dialogue about
forming a Police Advisory Commission.
• 7/2003: Advertised for members of the Police Advisory Commission.
• 1/2004: Council appointed the members to the newly formed Police Advisory
Commission.
General charge to the task force in the PAC study:
• To determine if a Police Advisory Commission, Committee or Task Force was
recommended.
• If so, what should be the role, responsibility or purpose of that group?
Bridget Gothberg facilitated the first few meetings. Linda Trummer was the chair for a period of
time. Lori Dreier was the police officer ex-officio member. The difficulty was that the task
force members ended up wanting to be the Commission, as opposed to simply recommending
what should be done. A number of people became frustrated and left, and others were pleased.
Public Involvement Options
If the City Council would like to pursue this further, possible options to provide a forum for
community involvement on environment related matters include:
• Create a City commission who’s focus relates to the environment
• Expand the role of an existing City commission e.g. Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
• Foster the creation of and partner with a stand-alone group similar to Friends of the Arts
who’s focus and passion relates to the environment e.g. Friends of the Environment.
• Convene a forum one or twice a year that is focused specifically on the environment and
the City’s policy and initiatives in this area.
• Create time limited task forces to provide input to the Council on specific environmental
issues or questions.
• Utilize approach similar to what was used for determining whether the Police Advisory
Commission should be created.
When considering the approach to use a question to consider is – What is missing in this area
that, if it were present, would make the situation better?
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.
Attachment: February 25, 2008 Report
September 13, 2010 Report (without attachments)
November 8, 2010 Report (without attachments)
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Vision Strategic Direction discussion. Focus area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council provide direction on which option to continue to explore regarding the need
and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council see a need to create an additional commission to address environmental issues?
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted the Vision Strategic Directions – 18 month guide. Since
adoption of the 18 month guide, Vision team members have been working on the focus areas in the
strategic directions. As discussed at the Council work session in February, staff will present
information for Council consideration on each Vision focus area now through September 2008.
The following will be discussed:
St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
Staff has been gathering information from other cities in the metro area population 25,000 to
100,000. We also reviewed our current structure of boards and commissions in our city (listing
attached). After review of data, looking at our existing commissions and conversations with staff we
are recommending 3 options to consider (in random order):
Option A: Current system and number of commissions seems to be working well. Council
can create task forces for specific needs to address this area as they arise.
Option B: Expand existing scope of Park and Recreation Advisory Commission or Planning
Commission (or modify another commission) to also address energy/environment along with
their current duties.
Option C: Create a new commission. The focus could be Natural Resources, Energy,
Healthy or Clean Environment. For example, we can have a discussion and explore if there
is a role for “healthy” environment and advisory commissions and/or a stand-alone energy
commission and talk about the focus of that group.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This is about the Vision Strategic Direction: St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all
areas of city business.
And the focus area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission
Attachments: Listing of Boards and Commissions for St. Louis Park
Chart of what other cities are doing (not included with 3/26/12 report)
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
ST. LOUIS PARK BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
The Board of Zoning Appeals acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council. BOZA may hear and make
recommendations on matters referred to them or by which it is required under the Zoning Ordinance. The
Board shall hear and decide on variances to be granted in regard to the Zoning Ordinance and other
applicable State laws. The Board may also hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit
decision, refusal, or determination from the Zoning Administer or interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendations, reports, and records from the Board are communicated to the City Council.
• BOZA consists of 5 members.
• Meets the fourth Thursday of every month at 6:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development provides support this board.
Charter Commission
The Commission’s mission is to evaluate and propose changes which are warranted in the City Home Rule
Charter as provided by State Statute. The commission also monitors legislative activities on an on-going basis.
The commission is composed of fifteen members who serve on a volunteer basis and staff liaison that provides
assistance to record minutes, prepare agendas, and perform other ministerial duties.
• The Charter Commission is citizens’ group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Chief Judge
of Hennepin County District Court.
• Meetings are held as needed.
• Staff from Administrative Services provides support to this Commission.
Community Education Advisory Council (CEAC)
CEAC makes recommendations on programming, budgeting and funding sources for St. Louis Park
community education programs for all ages, children and seniors alike. Its members represent various
interests in the community including the School Board, City Council, service organizations, parks and
recreation, health providers and businesses.
• CEAC has 19 members, 4 of these are citizens, 2 are Council appointments.
• Meetings are on the third Tuesday of every month.
Fire Civil Service Commission
The Commission is vested with the authority to regulate and supervise the employment, promotion,
discharge and suspension of all sworn fire positions of full-time status of the St. Louis Park Fire Department.
• The Fire Civil Service Commission is a three person commission appointed by the City Council.
• The commission meets as needed throughout the year.
• Staff from Administrative Services provides support to this Commission.
Housing Authority (HA)
The Housing Authority assists and advises the City Council in matters concerning all types and levels of
housing in the city such as Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, Public Housing, and TRAILS (a
self-sufficiency program).
• The Housing Authority consists of five members.
• Meeting held on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development/Housing provide support to this Commission.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Human Rights Commission (HRC)
The Human Rights Commission advises the City Council on how to ensure equal opportunity and
participation in housing, employment, public service, public accommodations and education.
• The Commission consists of eleven regular members, one of which is an attorney and another that is
appointed by the School Board. The commission also may have two voting youth members.
• Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Police Department/Neighborhoods provide support to this Commission
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRC)
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission considers matters pertaining to long-range park and
recreation plans; and may offer recommendations in new development areas in relation to park and recreation
space. The City Council may request the Commission to study and advise on other related items.
• The Commission consists of seven regular members and one voting youth member.
• Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Parks and Recreation provides support to this Commission.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission advises the City Council in matters concerning comprehensive planning, zoning,
platting, street changes, and general planning and development. This Commission may also hold public
hearings on certain issues.
• The commission consists of seven regular members and one nonvoting youth member.
• Meetings are held the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development provides support to this Commission.
Police Advisory Commission (PAC)
The commission recently formed as a means to enhance awareness of police department capabilities and
services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement and input in police services and encourage exchange
between the police department and the community. The work of the commission changes as the needs of the
community change. Commissioners design and create their own initiatives each year.
• The commission consists of eleven regular members and one voting youth member.
• Meetings are held the first Wednesday every other month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Police Department provides support to this Commission.
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC)
This Commission advises Council regarding the existing and future cable TV franchises and related services in
St. Louis Park. It receives citizen comments or complaints about cable service, recommends improvements to
the system, and studies other technologies as directed by the Council.
• The commission consists of seven regular members, one voting youth member, one ex-officio
member.
• This Commission meets 4 or more times per year and on an as needed basis.
• Staff from Information Resources provides support to this Commission.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Meeting Date: September 13, 2010
Agenda Item #2
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:
Environmental Activities Update 2008 – 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Staff who serve on the City’s “E-Group” will present an overview of the
City’s environmental related activities over the last several years.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council need any additional information?
• Is there any other action the Council wishes staff to take regarding this item?
BACKGROUND:
Environmental related information has been prepared and will be presented at the Study Session
based on the direction from Council at the May 10 Study Session. At that Study Session a discussion
took place on the City’s role with environmental stewardship. As stated in the meeting minutes, at
the end of the discussion “it was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to inventory and
report back on what groups are currently doing from an environmental standpoint, obtain a status
from the E-Group, and review and report on previous meeting minutes and past actions by the
Council, staff or others in the community”.
This report provides a summary and background information on environmental activities based on
Council’s request. It also relates to the City Council’s adopted Strategic Direction:
“St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
Also, included with this report is a set of data titled “Environmental Activities Update 2008 –
2010”.
Who handles environmental work at the staff level?
Environment-related activities occur in all departments. With the growth of activities, initiatives,
regulations and programs, this area is larger than one department and is spread through many
divisions. Environmental work is incorporated into everything we do. The information in this
report will show many of the areas covered when dealing with the environment. As you move
through this report you may want to refer to a grid labeled “Staffing Designations – Environmental
Leads” (in the middle of this report) to help understand staffing structure and coordination on
environmental responsibilities.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
How do we communicate about environment?
Our best method of communicating the large amount of information, activities and resources to our
residents is through our website http://www.stlouispark.org/environment.html. This website is
continually updated to provide links to ever changing information. If you look at the site, you will
see links to the following information:
Environment
Be a steward
Beautify the Park
Businesses
Education
Gardening
Home owners
Programs
Recycling
Storm water
Wild life
Volunteering
What has been done on Vision/Strategic Directions and the Environment?
Since the adoption of the Strategic Directions in 2007, staff has been working on activities and
aligning what we do with the direction set by Council. Work in the environmental area has been
going on for years. With the adoption of the Strategic Direction related to the environment, a more
focused and coordinated effort was developed to link staff who work in areas related to the
environment to provide efficiency in service delivery and implementation of programs.
In 2007, Council adopted four specific Strategic Directions with one having an emphasis on
environmental stewardship as follows:
“St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
Focus will be on:
• Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
• Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits, etc.,
encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED),
creation of open spaces, environmental innovations, etc.
• Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
In the 18 months following the adoption of the Strategic Directions, staff created teams to work on
the strategies adopted by the City Council. Teams worked on each Strategic Direction and Focus
Area and reported to Council several times on the environmental activities. Council discussed each
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Focus Area as presented, had discussions and took action or provided direction on each
environmental Focus Area as follows:
February 25, 2008: “Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.”
The consensus of the majority of the Council was that there was not a need at this time for a new
stand alone commission. Council also discussed creating task forces for specific needs when
necessary. The complete 2/25/08 report can be found in the attached Environmental Activities
Update 2008 - 10.
May 12, 2008: “Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.” Council agreed that an
energy audit would be beneficial. A consultant was retained for the purpose of conducting a
comprehensive energy audit and improvement plan for City operations, to establish a Council policy
to incorporate LEED principles and methods into the design and construction of all new/remodeled
City buildings, and to establish a Council policy for the City to consider selecting energy efficient
and environmentally safe options during daily operations. The complete 5/12/08 report can be
found in the Environmental Activities Update attachment.
September 2, 2008: “Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.” The
consensus of the Council was to have PRAC (Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission) review
the list of priorities and report back to Council. The complete 9/2/08 report can be found in the
Environmental Activities Update attachment. PRAC reviewed and discussed the list of priorities
from the report on September 17 and December 3, 2008. This information was provided to
Council on March 2, 2009 as part of the minutes from the PRAC meeting.
September 22, 2008: “Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship
and best practices”. The consensus of Council was to move forward with the plan presented and
discussed at the study session. The complete 9/22/08 report can be found in the Environmental
Activities Update attachment. Website was updated and Communications has been working with
Westwood Hills on an information and marketing plan.
September 22, 2008: “Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects,
permits etc., encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED),
creation of open spaces, environmental innovation, etc.” It was the consensus of the Council to
move forward with the recommendations as discussed. The complete 9/22/08 report can be found
in the Environmental Activities Update attached.
2009 Council Workshop (January 30-31): Council reconfirms their ongoing commitment to
Vision and the four strategic directions. As part of the Council workshop, discussions were held on
the strategic directions, Decision Resources survey, group norms and expectations, long range
financial management plan, City services data, potential process for resource allocation and
documenting the Vision journey. All areas of Vision and Vision activities were reviewed with
Council. This update included activities in the environmental area and the E-Group structure.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
One of the outcomes of the workshop was that Council reconfirmed their ongoing commitment to
Vision and the four Strategic Directions:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
• St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community
aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Council also agreed that we use the lens of Vision to guide our work and how we deliver services.
W hen did Staff review the City’s environmental service delivery model?
Upon adoption of the Strategic Directions staff conducted a study to help determine what
specifically would be required to “take the City to the next level” as it pertains to St. Louis Park
becoming a city distinguished as a leader in environmental stewardship. Within that framework, the
findings were as follows:
• Environmental work is done by most departments.
From this study, it was determined that work on the environment is done by nearly all
departments. We do not have one central staff person for environment because of the
large scope. The variety of environmental duties are incorporated into our every day
business.
• Staffing coordination strengthened.
The internal structure was reviewed and strengthened for increased coordination,
communication and continued growth in environmental activities. The E-Group was
formed.
• Environmental communication enhanced.
It was found that the City is involved in an extensive amount of environmental
education, initiatives, activities and events. It was determined that the website needed to
be improved to get the message out to residents and others on environmental work and
information. The website was expanded several years ago and has a large volume of
information that is updated on a regular basis by staff from a number of departments.
Did staff look at the City’s organizational structure, communications and staff coordination
relating to the environment?
To be sure staff was communicating with each other and efficient in our work in the environmental
area, review was done of who exactly was handling what task. Upon review, the grid titled “Staffing
Designations” was developed to help show how our internal structure works when handling
environmental activities.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 16
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Staffing Designations – Environmental Leads
COMPLIANCE & ENERGY
MANAGEMENT
Building Inspectors
Erosion Control (Compliance)
Facilities Superintendent
City Buildings/Facilities, Energy Management
Environmental Health Specialist
Code Compliance
Environmental Health
Pollution (odors, light, noise)
Property Maintenance
Radon
Remediation/Pollution (Health Related)
Equipment Superintendent
Equipment & Fleet
WATER, WASTE & INFRASTRUCTURE
City Engineer
Storm Water – Overall Management and Oversight Planning and
Flood
Engineering Program Coordinator
Erosion Control (permits)
Flood Proofing Program – Grant Program
Storm Water (Plans, Permits)
Public Works Coordinator
Clean Up Days
Solid Waste & Recycling
Utilities Superintendent
Drinking Water
Groundwater Remediation
Non Point Source Mgmt. Program Plan - NPDES
Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer
Wellhead Protection
EDUCATION & NATURAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Environmental Coordinator
Arbor Day
Assist with policies and implementation
Community Aesthetics – Beautify the Park
Evergreen Award
Fish
Forestry, Landscaping and Vegetation
Evergreen Award
Pesticides and Fertilizer (Phosphorus)
Protected Waters
Trees
Wildlife Management
Wetlands
Westwood Nature Center Manager
Education (Content, Events, Programs, Speakers)
Websites and Marketing
Westwood Nature Center
PLANNING & INCENTIVES
Economic Development Coordinator
Pollution/Remediation – Technical Assistance through LEED, TIF,
Redevelopment Policy
Housing Programs Coordinator
Green Buildings and Technical Assistance – Res.
Housing Improvement Programs (HIA, Loan Programs, CDBG,
Green Pilot Remodeling Program)
Planner
Green Buildings and Technical Assistance – Comm.
Shoreland Development
Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Conservation Easements
Development Controls
Floodplain - Zoning
Env. Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Env. Impact Statement (EIS),
Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR), etc.
Environmental Plan Review & Coordination
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & SPILLS
Fire Marshal
Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Spills and Reporting
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 17
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
What is the E-Group and why was it created (internal coordination of staff)?
Staff from each department gathered in 2007 – 2008 to talk about how to strengthen work as well as
coordinate and communicate about the activities we do in connection with the environment. Since
most, if not all, departments are involved with work activities that deal with environmental issues, it
was determined that rather than creating a separate division in the organization, all departments and
divisions would continue to work together on environmental issues.
After many discussions, it was determined that staff from each department would be assigned to
work together formally as part of the “E-Group”. Due to the large scope of activities in the
environmental area, it was found that staff would be able to have a better handle on activities and
provide a broader service level and provide more education with our residents and businesses if we
made sure that all areas (departments and divisions) of our operations connected and aligned what
we do with the environment. Information on the review of the environmental services and creation
of the E-Group was discussed in detail with Council at the workshop in January, 2009.
The E-Group is very active and meets on a regular basis. They work with each other to share
information and plan activities. Each E-Group member is responsible for reporting back to their
department on activities, programs, events and initiatives to make sure it is incorporated into our
daily business. Agendas and minutes are attached in the Environmental Activities Update as
requested by Council.
What are examples of ongoing environmental activities?
Some examples of activities include, but are not limited to; Beautify the Park, , green housing, green
building, energy grants for lighting of Police Station offices and some signal lights, educating
residents with the energy challenge, events such as Earth Day/Arbor Day and Eco Fair, landscape
and rain garden workshops, urban forest program, ash borer program, Westwood Nature Center
programming, storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), active living program participation,
integrated pest management (IPM) of turf and plants in parks, energy efficiency improvements in
buildings, storm and surface water programs, green business development, continued improvements
to our garbage and recycling programs, moving to eliminate use of paper, review of environmentally
friendly purchasing, transition to more energy efficient vehicles in our fleet, continued education of
staff and information for residents, providing education sessions to youth, etc.
Solid Waste, Recycling, Erosion Control, Storm Water
As Council is aware, these programs are large, ongoing environmental programs that are well
established. Due to the size of the data and Council familiarity, a minimal amount of information is
attached. These areas will be discussed with Council at the Study Session. More information is
available as requested. Some recent activities in solid waste/recycling include:
• Work with Hennepin County by hosting and promoting the annual “Household Hazardous
Waste” disposal event.
• Participate in the County recycling recovery rate study to determine the amount of recyclable
material being thrown away in the garbage.
• Work with the County by hosting and promoting the upcoming medication drop-off event.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 18
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
• Work with Eureka Recycling by coordinating and providing video services to create the
“Twin Cities Free Market” video (http://www.stlouispark.org/waste-reduction/twin-cities-
free-market.html) to promote reuse and waste reduction.
• Work with Eureka Recycling to make the Earth & Arbor Day event at Westwood Nature
Center a “Zero Waste Event”. Also planning to make the 2011 City-wide Open House
being held at the MSC a “Zero Waste Event”.
• Working with Eureka Recycling to hold upcoming “Backyard Composting” workshops.
• Provide residents with education for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) disposal and
waste reduction.
• Host meetings with business owners to promote waste reduction and recycling.
• Provide recycling education to SLP elementary school classes.
• Working with a local Girl Scout group on a recycling project to help them achieve their
“Gold Award”.
Westwood Hills Nature Center
Westwood Hills is a long standing show place for all types of environmental education and activities
in our city. Staff works closely with residents, guests, schools and other groups on programs,
education, information and activities for all ages. The 2009 Attendance Report is included in the
Environmental Activities Update attachment and more information about Westwood will be
presented at the Study Session.
Do we have Council reports related to the environment?
Attached is a list of Council reports from 2008 to present that have been provided to the Council
that relate to the environment. Listing of these reports can be found in the Environmental Activities
Update. A complete copy of any or all reports can be obtained upon request.
Does the City Manager’s Digest include information related to the environment?
Other activities happen daily and weekly that touch the environment. We share information on
environmental activities and events in the Digest. Attached in the Environmental Activities Update
are the Digest items that relate to environment from 2008 to present.
Do our neighborhoods have activities related to the environment?
Our neighborhoods are interested and active in the environment. They like to plan and carry out
activities for their specific neighborhoods. A wide spread environmental related event in St. Louis
Park neighborhoods is the annual Beautify the Park activity. Neighborhoods also get involved with
planting and request informational and educational sessions in the environmental areas. Attached in
the Environmental Activities Update is information on neighborhood activities as they relate to the
environment.
Beginning with the 2009 neighborhood grants, an additional $2,000 in grants ($100 per
neighborhood) is available to neighborhoods that incorporate an environmental component either in
conjunction with an existing event or adding a new program/event. This new grant element ties to
the Vision strategic direction: “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 19
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
business.” In 2009, 11 neighborhoods requested the environmental grant. This year (2010), 16
neighborhoods have requested funding from the environmental neighborhood grant.
Do our volunteers work in the environmental area?
Our Volunteer Coordinator helps when citizens are interested in working on a variety of ongoing
activities related to the environment. These activities cross many departments and areas with our
City. Attached in the Environmental Activities Update is a listing of some of the environmental
related activities done by volunteers.
What commissions have activities related to environment?
Our commissions deal with environmental activities and issues in their regular work. The two
commissions that touch the environment most frequently are the Planning Commission and Park
and Recreation Advisory Commission. Depending on the topic, other commissions may also deal
with projects, initiatives and work in the environmental area.
What other agencies do we coordinate with on environmental items?
We coordinate with other agencies, cities, groups, etc., on the environment. Some include
Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Basset Creek Watershed, DNR, Three Rivers Park District, MPCA,
MN Department of Health, Metropolitan Council, Clean Water MN, Metro Blooms, MPWA (MN
Public Works Association), Prairie Restorations, Inc., Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
Hennepin County and Hennepin County Conservation District, Tree Trust, Xcel Energy, District
Energy, EPA. Staff from different departments provide support and connections to these agencies
depending on the topic or issue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable in the context of this report
VISION CONSIDERATION:
“St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
Attachments: Environmental Activities Update 2008 – 2010
Vision Environmental Work Summary - 2008
Council Workshop Information - 2009
E-Group Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Solid Waste and Recycling
Council Meeting Presentations, Study Session Items and Reports
City Manager’s Digest Environmental Items
Neighborhood Environmental Activities
Volunteer Office Environmental Programs and Activities
Other Items
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Reviewed by: E-Group
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 20
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
Meeting Date: November 8, 2010
Agenda Item # 4
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:
Process for Community Input on Environment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff desires direction from the City Council on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What additional process, if any, does the City Council wish to employ to gain input or
feedback from the community on environmental related matters
• Is there any additional information that is needed?
BACKGROUND:
As requested by Council, On September 13, 2010 staff presented an inventory and reported on what
is currently being done by the City from an environmental standpoint, a status update from the E-
Group, along with previous meeting minutes and past actions by the Council, staff or others in the
community.
Discussion also centered on Vision as it also relates to the City Council’s adopted Strategic
Direction: “St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
After the presentation and conversation by Council, staff was directed to set aside time at an
upcoming study session for discussion on the question: Is there a need for a venue for residents to
have input or discussion on Environment and/or Energy in the community (see attached meeting
minutes).
DISCUSSION:
Bridget Gothberg, OD Coordinator will assist facilitating this discussion. Some ideas we heard from
the City Council included:
• Use existing commissions. We have 2 commissions that deal with many environmental or
energy activities - our Parks and Recreation and Planning Commission. One idea would be
to create an open forum with each of these commissions every 6 months, set aside a set time
and invite community members in to talk about environment related issues.
• Web input. Provide a mechanism on the City’s website to invite comments or ideas.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 21
Subject: Environmental Input Discussion
• Use existing organizations. The City could encourage citizens to become members or
support existing organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, Green Institute, etc.
• Create a task force to frame the role(s), responsibilities of an Environmental Advisory
Commission. This task force would work closely with staff, based on council direction, and
come back with the recommendation for an Environmental Advisory Commission,
including its responsibilities, how it would best function etc.
• Continue Education/Communication/Other Thoughts: This could include using
Community Ed, our schools, a web blog, periodic cable programs, social media, etc as a
means to continue to increase communication and education on what the City is involved in
past, present and future relating to the environment.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION
St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business
Attachments: Staffing Designations – Environmental Leads
Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2010
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This staff report has been prepared to assist with the study
session discussion on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue moving forward with the improvement measures as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the December 12, 2011 Study Session, Council was presented with a variety of treatment
options and strategies for improving safety at the Regional Trail crossings at both Wooddale
Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. An analysis providing a variety of treatment strategies, options,
and recommendations was presented for the Council’s consideration.
Staff returned to Council at the Study Session on February 13, 2012 to discuss the options
further. At this meeting Council directed staff to continue to move forward with the Wooddale
Improvements. For the Beltline crossing, Council directed staff to investigate other possible
options further and return to Council for additional discussion at a later date. The staff report
from the February 13, 2012 meeting is attached to provide further background regarding the
options discussed at the Beltline Crossing.
Proposed Alternative:
After a review of past discussions, re-review of alternatives, and additional site visits and
analysis, the Consultant (SRF) is proposing a reconstruction of the crossing area that would
essentially widen the road to the east and include the following:
1. Construction of a wider center median and refuge area (approximately 12 feet wide)
2. Shift the crossing location slightly to the north
3. Realignment of the trail east and west of the road (slightly)
Although there are physical restrictions due to the railroad crossing semaphores and gates, a
widening of the roadway to the east may be a feasible option based on available space and right
of way. This would also result in the north-south trail along the east side of Beltline being
pushed further to the east, requiring the construction of a retaining wall to avoid encroachment
into private property. In order to widen the roadway within guidelines for a State Aid collector
street (including width, horizontal curvature, etc.), and avoiding negative impacts to the railroad
crossing, the trail crossing would need to be shifted slightly north. As a result, some realignment
of the trail can be easily accommodated with this proposal (from soft to more abrupt). The
attached concept sketch (Exhibit A) and typical section(s) (Exhibit B) illustrate this proposal
further.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
Staff and the Consultant are also in the process of gaining additional feedback for this proposal
from other stakeholders, including Three Rivers Park District and the Railroad.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of constructing this improvement is estimated at this time to be approximately
$150,000. Funds have not been specifically designated for an improvement project of this size,
and would need to be pursued from combinations of other sources including Municipal State
Aid, Development Funds, General Funds, and other stakeholders such as Three Rivers Park
District.
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
Attachments: Study Session Report: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail
Improvement Options (February 13, 2012)
SRF Concept Sketch (Exhibit A): Proposed Beltline Boulevard Regional
Trail Crossing Treatment Measure
SRF Concept Typical Section (Exhibit B): Proposed Beltline Boulevard
Roadway 6ection &hanges
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange and Beltline Blvd. Traffic and Trail Improvement Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This staff report has been prepared to assist with the study
session discussion on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue moving forward with the implementation measures as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the December 12, 2011 Study Session, Council was presented with a variety of treatment
options and strategies for improving safety at the Regional Trail crossings at both Wooddale
Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. Also included were strategies for addressing visibility and
sightline concerns in the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange area. An analysis providing a variety
of treatment strategies, options, and recommendations was presented for the Council’s
consideration. The staff report from the December 12 meeting is attached to provide further
background information.
After the discussion on December 12, C ouncil directed staff to investigate the following
treatment options for further consideration:
WOODDALE AVENUE
1. Extend the Wooddale Ave. center median at the south frontage road pedestrian
crossing to provide a refuge area for pedestrians crossing Wooddale Ave.
2. Restripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes to help
organize traffic flow as motorists travel through this area and to reduce pedestrian
exposure to vehicle traffic by reducing the number of traffic lanes.
3. Improv e the sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7 westbound off-ramp
intersection by shifting the current crosswalk on this approach slightly further to the west.
4. Investigate the feasibility of installing dynamic in-pavement lighting (lighting is
embedded into the pavement).
BELTLINE BOULEVARD
1. Install a marked pedestrian crosswalk along with other treatment measures needed to
augment a marked crosswalk, including “raising” the crosswalk for increased visibility.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 3
Summary and Recommendations:
As a result of the direction provided by Council at the December 12, 2011 discussion, SRF has
prepared a draft memorandum providing for implementation of the measures mentioned above
(see attached). Key measures in the consultant’s memorandum can be summarized as follows:
Wooddale Avenue
1. Extend the Wooddale center median. This could be performed with additional paint
(paving markings) included with the re-striping of Wooddale Avenue itself. A second
option would be extending the existing curb further north up to the crosswalk, estimated
cost of up t o $10,000. Because of the relatively frequent use of heavy vehicles
conducting turns across the crosswalk and median area, it is recommended that any
median extension be constructed with a surmountable type concrete curb.
2. Re-stripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes. This
strategy would reduce the exposure of trail users to vehicle traffic while potentially
reducing speeds on Wooddale Avenue. Mn/Dot is currently evaluating this plan and will
be providing further comments. The cost to remove the existing pavement markings and
install new markings is expected to cost up to $10,000. This estimate also includes re-
marking of the crosswalks at the ramps, described further in the next treatment option.
3. Re-align the crosswalk at the TH 7/Wooddale Interchange westbound off ramp.
Relocation of the crosswalk would be slightly further west in order to provide better
sightlines for vehicles approaching Wooddale Avenue from the ramps. S ome field
adjustment of the sidewalk pedestrian ramps may also be needed to match the shifted
crosswalks which would result in an additional cost.
4. Install in-pavement lighting. The estimated cost to install in-pavement lighting would
be $8000 - $13,000 and would provide added visibility without the added confusion of an
additional light competing or conflicting with railroad crossing semaphores.
As previously mentioned, the Wooddale interchange area is under the jurisdiction of Mn/Dot.
Proposed strategies, including the re-striping plan are currently under their review at this time
and are subject to further revision or change.
Beltline Boulevard
Council expressed an interest in re-establishing crosswalk markings at this location. T his
improvement was not recommended as part of the previous analysis due to research showing that
the potential of pedestrian incidents at marked crosswalks on multi-lane roadways with higher
volumes is higher compared to unmarked crossings. If this strategy is pursued, additional safety
measures should be implemented to increase the visibility of the crossing and clarify right of
way. Additional safety measures recommended at this location would include advance stop bars
and in-pavement lighting. A pedestrian activated signal such as a H AWK system is not
recommended due to potential confusion and conflict with the railroad signals and other factors
as discussed in the consultant’s memorandum. Such a system would also require review and
approval by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. In pavement lighting has therefore been
suggested by the consultant.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 4
The cost to re-establish the crosswalk itself and install stop bars is minimal and could be covered
under existing operating budgets. T he installation of in-pavement lighting would be an
additional $8,000 - $13,000 plus any additional maintenance costs.
Council also expressed interest in constructing a raised crosswalk at this location. Because of the
trail crossing’s close proximity to the railroad tracks and design considerations for
accommodating the traffic design speed on a State-Aid collector street, this strategy is not
feasible.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The more minor treatment strategies such as re-striping of the roadway or extending median
curbing can be covered through existing operating budgets. H owever, more advanced
treatments such as in-pavement lighting will need determination of other possible funding
sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA funds, or possible partnerships with other
agency stakeholders.
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
Attachments: Study Session Report: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail
Improvement Options (December 12, 2011)
SRF Memorandum (Exhibit A): Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
Regional Trail Crossing Implementation Plan (January 31, 2012)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 5
Meeting Date: December 12, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
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:
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This staff report has been prepared to assist with the study
session discussion on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to pursue any or all of the recommended treatment strategies?
BACKGROUND:
History
On September 26, 2011, the City Council was provided two reports that provided background
information and histories for: 1) The regional trail crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard and 2) The design and public process with regards to construction of the Highway
7/Wooddale interchange and bridge. Those reports are attached to this report for further
reference and background information. At that time the City Council made it clear it wished to
discuss these topic areas at a future study session.
Please note that representatives from MnDOT, Three Rivers Park District and SLP PD will be in
attendance for this study session discussion.
Analysis
Safety concerns and operational issues have been expressed with regard to the trail crossings at
both Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Blvd, as well as the operation of the newly constructed
bridge and interchange area. As stated in previous reports, the extent to which improvements
can be constructed at both trail crossings is limited due to pending light rail and station
improvements. Because the regional trail is located within the Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) right of way and LRT design specifics (including specific rail
locations) are unknown, longer term solutions such as separated grade crossings have not been
possible. However, the concerns over current safety and the time lag until specific LRT design
specifics are known has raised the need to consider further options.
Over the past couple of months, staff has reviewed these concerns further with the assistance of a
traffic consultant (SRF) and other stakeholders, including Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District,
and the Public Safety/Police Departments of both the City and Three Rivers Park District.
Comments and input received from both motorists and trail users throughout the process have
been considered as well.
The attached memorandum from SRF dated December 2, 2011 pr ovides an analysis of the
crossings and provides a wide variety of treatment strategies for consideration. D ifferent
strategy options were compared for effectiveness against specific objectives such as vehicle
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 6
speed reductions, overall pedestrian and bicycle safety, visibility enhancement, and other
considerations. These assessments were all compiled onto a multi-colored matrix developed for
both Beltline and Wooddale and utilized as a base-map and tool for extensive interactive
discussion amongst the stakeholders. Although the color coded assessments denoting qualitative
effectiveness are essentially subjective in nature, they do pr ovide a good general base for
analysis and discussion purposes. The consultant also included observations and suggestions
with regards to complaints regarding the bridge and interchange sightlines, both in terms of inter-
relation with the trail crossing and by itself.
After reviewing and discussing the various strategies with the stakeholders, the following are
recommended:
WOODDALE AVENUE
• Strategy W2: Extension of the center refuge median is recommended to improve trail
safety by providing a better refuge area for trail users (approximate cost - $15,000). This
option could be performed by a combination of paint and curb extension.
• Strategy W3: Restriping Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn
lanes would help to organize traffic flow as motorists travel through this area. Based on
the current ADT and a detailed operations analysis completed for this corridor, restriping
the roadway would have minimal impact to roadway capacity operations. This strategy
would benefit trail users by reducing their exposure to vehicle traffic by reducing the
number of traffic lanes, as well as reducing traffic speeds on Wooddale Avenue. In
addition, the re-striping would provide additional space for the creation of a wider center
median (approximate cost - $10,000).
• Strategy W11: Construction of a trail chicane (sharp bends) to add curvature prior to
the crossing would significantly reduce the speed of trail users as they approach
Wooddale Avenue. This strategy is suggested as a means of addressing cyclists in
particular who do not stop or even slow down for the stop signs. However, there is
limited right of way in which to perform this option. R emoving the current trail
curvature on the east side and extending the trail to intersect perpendicular to Wooddale
Avenue would force users to slow down significantly. The curvature of the trail on the
west side could be sharpened as it approaches the crossing to slow users. As trail users
approach the roadway, soft or hard landscaping features could be used to guide trail users
north on Wooddale Avenue, parallel to the roadway, to the current crossing location. This
realignment would provide a safety benefit to trail users by reducing their speed as they
approach Wooddale Avenue (SRF Memo - Figure 7). The trail realignment and any
associated landscape features would require construction within the HCRRA right of way
and would require their permission (approximate cost - $50,000).
Strategy W6 could be considered as an additional improvement to the Wooddale Avenue trail
crossing to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, if and when the City feels additional
improvements might be necessary.
• Strategy W6: Due to the tight intersection spacing along Wooddale Avenue and the
close proximity to the railroad crossing, the use of dynamic in-pavement lighting
(lighting is embedded into the pavement) could provide a safety benefit to trail users by
increasing the visibility of the crossing and heightening the driver’s awareness of a
pedestrian or bicyclist in the crossing, helping to clarify the right of way at this
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 7
crosswalk. This device would provide a similar benefit to a rapid flash warning beacon,
without the added confusion to motorists approaching the railroad crossing (approximate
cost - $20,000).
Finally, Strategy W13 could be considered as an additional measure that would address the
bridge and interchange sightline concerns, along with providing a possible added benefit for trail
users.
• Strategy W13: Currently, the TH 7 ramp intersections with Wooddale Avenue are
closely spaced unsignalized intersections with limited sight lines (SRF Memo - Figure 3).
The installation of traffic signals at the ramp intersections would improve traffic
operations for the adjacent intersections and would benefit trail users by providing
additional gaps in Wooddale Avenue vehicle traffic. The approximate cost to install
traffic signals (for both ramp intersections) is estimated to be $300,000 - $400,000.
The sight lines at the TH 7/Wooddale Avenue interchange ramps are not related to the
safety of the trail crossing solely, and Mn/DOT did provide feedback for an improvement
option to consider. To improve the limited sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7
westbound off-ramp intersection, Mn/DOT has suggested extending the current sidewalk
on the east side of the bridge slightly to the west. In addition, the current crosswalk on
this approach could be shifted further west. With this modification, the sight lines for this
approach would improve. However, the feasibility of this option would need to be
evaluated further to determine the cost and design modifications that may be required for
the roadway and the bridge itself. A less costly measure for further consideration and
review would be to slightly shift the existing curb ramps and crosswalk markings further
from the ramps. Although such a shift would be very minimal, improvements to the
sightlines would see some improvement. T he cost would depend on the extent of
treatment. S hifting the crosswalk a couple of feet would be minimal. H owever,
reconstructing the sidewalk and/or curbs would require a more extensive re-evaluation, as
those elements may be integral to the bridge itself.
BELTLINE BOULEVARD
To address safety concerns within the limited constraints of the rail corridor, improvement
strategy B4 is recommended for further consideration as follows:
• Strategy B4: The current alignment of the Beltline Boulevard trail crossing provides an
opportunity for bicyclists to approach the crossing at high rates of speed. The
construction of a trail chicane to add curvature as the trail approaches Beltline
Boulevard would provide a safety benefit to trail users by reducing the speed of trail
users as they approach and cross the roadway (approximate cost - $50,000).
A potential approach would be to realign the trail on the west side of Beltline Boulevard to the
south and on the east side of Beltline Boulevard to the north (SRF Memo - Figure 8). As trail
users approach the roadway, soft or hard landscaping features would be used to guide them.
These features would be low-lying to avoid blocking sight lines. This realignment would provide
significant safety benefits for trail users. One benefit is a decrease in the speed of trail users
approaching Beltline Boulevard. In addition, the alignment of trail users facing motorists as they
travel north along Beltline Boulevard towards the crossing would improve the visibility and non-
verbal communication between motorists and trail users. The trail realignment and associated
landscape features would require construction within the HCRRA right of way and would
require their permission.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 8
Summary
The consultant’s analysis provides a detailed assessment of the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard, and also addresses sightline issues
associated with the interchange tight diamond configuration. T he assessment for the trail
crossings was completed by applying criteria that is proven to improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety at trail crossing locations to a w ide variety of strategies. Based on this evaluation,
conversations with stakeholders, and taking into consideration the current roadway design and
surrounding environment, the solutions that are considered to provide the greatest benefit and are
most applicable at each location are recommended. H owever, further additional detailed
analysis, design, and review would be necessary for each of these recommended strategies prior
to implementing.
Determining more specific costs and possible funding sources will generally require further
evaluation, depending on options chosen. The more minor treatment strategies such as additional
extending the existing median may be covered covered through existing operating budgets.
However, more advanced treatments such as traffic signals and in-pavement lighting would need
investigation of other possible funding sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA
funds, or possible partnerships with other agency stakeholders,
Wooddale Avenue
• Extension of a painted center refuge median (approximate cost - $15,000)
• Restriping Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes (approximate
cost - $10,000)
• Construction of a trail chicane (approximate cost - $50,000)
It should be noted that any or all of the above strategies could be implemented either together or
in stages if desired. If additional improvements are felt necessary, the following could also be
considered:
• Dynamic in-pavement lighting at the crossing (approximate cost - $20,000)
• Installation of traffic signals at the TH 7 ramp intersections (approximate cost - $300,000
- $400,000)
The consideration of traffic signals would also need to consider future traffic levels, especially
with regards to a nearby LRT station.
Beltline Boulevard
• Construction of a trail chicane (approximate cost - $50,000)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Determining more specific costs and possible funding sources will require further evaluation,
depending on options chosen. The more minor treatment strategies such as an extension of the
existing median on W ooddale can likely be covered through existing operating budgets.
However, more advanced treatments such as traffic signals and in-pavement lighting would need
investigation of other possible funding sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA
funds, or possible partnerships with other agency stakeholders.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 9
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
Attachments: - Study Session Report: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings: (Beltline and
Wooddale): Background and History (September 26, 2011).
- Study Session Report: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background
Information (September 26, 2011).
- SRF Memorandum: Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings
(December 2, 2011).
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 10
SRF No. 0117627
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Craig Vaughn, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate
Carla Stueve, PE, PTOE, Associate
DATE: February 7, 2012
SUBJECT: WOODDALE AVENUE AND BELTLINE BOULEVARD
REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive engineering assessment of the Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
regional trail crossings, in the City of St. Louis Park, was completed by SRF and documented
in the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings: Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard memorandum, dated December 12, 2011. SRF also completed a study for these
two crossings in November 2006. However, since the conclusion of that study, conditions
have changed at the crossing locations. Major changes have been made near the Wooddale
Avenue crossing, including the construction of a diamond interchange at TH 7/Wooddale
Avenue and relocation of the TH 7 South Frontage Road. As part of this reconstruction
project the trail crossing was relocated from its mid-block location to the TH 7 S outh
Frontage Road/Wooddale Avenue intersection, and the trail itself was realigned to
accommodate this shift.
The Beltline Boulevard crossing and future planning efforts have also changed significantly.
Previously, a grade-separated crossing was recommended and had received partial funding.
However, it was later determined that constructing a grade-separation was not feasible due to
the close proximity of railroad tracks to the south. Although it should be noted, this may
serve as a long-term solution if the railroad line were converted to a Light Rail Transit (LRT)
line in the future.
The current study evaluated the benefits of potential safety strategies to improve the operation
and safety for both roadway and trail users at these crossings based on current conditions.
The results of the study were presented to the City Council during a work-session on
December 12, 2011. At this meeting the City Council provided direction for how they would
like to see improvements implemented at these two crossing locations. The purpose of this
document is to outline, as an implementation plan, the City Council recommended actions and
subsequent understood impacts and ancillary needs that may result. It was developed based
on a combination of the current study results and the City Council direction.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 11
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Wooddale Avenue
Numerous improvement strategies were evaluated for the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail at
Wooddale Avenue as part of the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings:
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard project. This study resulted in three core
improvement recommendations; W2: extension of the center median, W3: restriping of
Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes, and W11: construction of a trail
chicane/realignment. Two additional improvements were identified for the City to consider;
W6: dynamic in-pavement lighting and W13: installation of traffic signals at the TH 7 ramp
intersections. These recommendations were presented to the City Council for their review
and approval. Based on the outcome of the City Council meeting, the following strategies are
offered for further consideration/implementation. The discussion included with each strategy
is provided to give an overview of the evaluation of this strategy and its pros/cons.
• Strategy W2: Extend the center median. This improvement would decrease the
exposure for trail users crossing Wooddale Avenue, provide a better refuge area, and
allow trail users to cross one direction of traffic at a time. The extension of this center
median could be completed in conjunction with the “W3: restriping of Wooddale Avenue
to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes” strategy. Note that this would either
be roadway striping outlining the “median” area or it could be an extension of the concrete
median from the south, but surmountable or flush concrete pavement so that vehicles
making a westbound to southbound left turn from the TH 7 F rontage Road could
track over it as necessary to make this movement (alternatives shown in attached
Appendix A). The cost associated with the striping only alternative is presented in the
attached cost estimate (Appendix A) and sums to approximately $9,561; the cost
associated with the striping alternative, plus the concrete pavement median refuge is
estimated to be $21,500.
• Strategy W3: Restripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes.
This roadway type can be considered a three-lane section. This strategy will reduce the
exposure of trail users to vehicle traffic, while potentially reducing traffic speeds on
Wooddale Avenue (less than 5 mph reduction). Based on the current average daily traffic
(ADT) volume of 11,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and detailed traffic operations, a two-lane
roadway with turn lanes would have minimal impact to overall operations and better
organize traffic flow along the corridor. A preliminary restriping plan has been developed
as part of this implementation plan (attached as Appendix A).
It is worth noting the typical roadway capacity thresholds for various roadway types. An
urban two-lane roadway can accommodate approximately 8,000 – 10,000 vpd. T his is
highly dependent on the amount of left and right turns off of this roadway. A three-lane
roadway (one lane in each direction with dedicated left-turn lanes or a continuous left-turn
lane throughout) can accommodate approximately 14,000 – 17,000 vpd. T his type of
facility is implemented where left turns from the subject roadway are significant, and
access is prevalent. A four-lane undivided roadway can be expected to accommodate
approximately 18,000 – 22,000 vpd (no turn lanes).
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 12
• Strategy W6: Install in-pavement lighting. This improvement would increase the
visibility and potentially heighten the driver’s awareness of a pedestrian or bicyclist in the
crossing, which will help to clarify the right-of-way at the crossing. The tight intersection
spacing along Wooddale Avenue and close proximity to the railroad crossing are corridor
context issues that raise the potential application of this alternative. Based on various
system designs, the LED lighting can be seen by drivers from a distance of 500-1,000 feet
away (depending on installation, etc.). The effect from potential damage due to winter
maintenance is always a concern. The LED in-pavement lights typically sit approximately
1/2” above the finished pavement surface. Research has shown that these systems
typically make it through winter climates, with snow and snow maintenance, with no
appreciable damage to the LED in-pavement lights. Procurement and installation costs
can range from $8,000 – $13,000.
• Strategy W13 (Revised): Realign the crosswalk at TH 7/Wooddale Interchange. Due
to the limited sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7 W estbound Off-Ramp
intersection, the City is considering relocating the current crosswalk location for the
eastbound and westbound off ramps. Relocation of these crosswalks would be slightly
further east and west in order to allow the vehicles approaching these intersections to have
better sight lines to the north and south. If necessary, the tactile ADA component of the
sidewalk ramps would be relocated to match the new crosswalk marking location.
Additional analysis was completed to estimate the cost and design modifications
associated with this improvement (see attached Appendix A).
Beltline Boulevard
Numerous improvement strategies were evaluated for the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail at
Beltline Boulevard as part of the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings:
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard project. O ne key strategy was recommended as a
result of this earlier analysis, B4: construction of a trail chicane. After presentation to and
review by the City Council, construction of a trail chicane was not supported. Discussion of
the following additional strategies is provided to determine the feasibility of implementation
within the current roadway context.
• Strategy B1: Installation of a speed table or raised crosswalk. This segment of
Beltline Boulevard serves as a major collector in the St. Louis Park system of roadways.
Its purpose is to move traffic north-south to other larger roadways, i.e. County Road 25. It
is also on the Municipal State Aid system for the City of St. Louis Park, which means it is
eligible for funding through MnDOT’s State Aid funding policy. In order to be on this
system it must adhere to design guidelines set forth by MnDOT. Municipal State Aid
streets that serve as collectors or locals with an ADT ≥ 10,000 vpd shall have a design
speed of 30-40 miles per hour (mph).
Installation of a r aised speed table or raised crosswalk will reduce vehicle speeds by
changing the elevation at the crossing (approximately 3.5 inches of raised pavement over
a 10 foot span, with 6 foot flanges on either side). Typically the travel speed over this
type of traffic calming device is approximately 20 mph or less. This resultant speed is
below the minimum allowed for a road on the Municipal State Aid System. In addition,
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 13
the close proximity to the adjacent railroad tracks causes additional concern with vehicles
slowing and stopping in this location. A lthough the speed table would improve the
visibility of the trail crossing and heighten driver’s awareness, which in turn would help to
clarify the right-of-way.
• Strategy B3: Widen the center median. Currently, Beltline Boulevard includes a 4-foot
center median and four 11-foot driving lanes. The minimum lane width for a Municipal
State Aid street is 11 feet. T he ADT volume is 14,100 vpd. Four dedicated travel lanes
are needed along this segment due to the lack of turning movements near this location and
the high directionality of the volumes during the peak hour conditions. A three lane
roadway section is not appropriate in this location.
Although widening the median would provide a better refuge for trail users, this
improvement would significantly impact the areas north and south of the crossing itself.
Due to the physical constraints of the roadway and the railroad crossing located
approximately 75 feet to the south, widening of the roadway would require modification
of the roadway across the tracks, including relocating the gate arms, cross bucks, and
overhead signing posts. This improvement should be considered as a long-term option
when the railroad is converted to LRT use.
• Strategy B5: Install a marked crosswalk. This improvement was not recommended as
part of the previous analysis due to research showing the potential to increase pedestrian
crashes at marked crosswalks on multilane roadways with higher volumes, compared to
unmarked crossings. If this strategy is implemented at this location, additional safety
measures should be implemented to increase the visibility of the crossing and clarify right-
of-way, such as Strategies B6 (Advance Stop Bars) and B7 (In-pavement Lighting).
• Strategy B6: Install advance crosswalk stop bars. Motorists on multilane roadways
that stop for trail users can create a multiple-threat collision, which occurs when a vehicle
stops for someone in the crossing and blocks the view of the trail user from a motorist in
an adjacent lane. Directing motorists to stop 20-50 feet back from the crossing can greatly
reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat crash. Careful consideration of the placement
of these stop bars would be needed at this location due to the close proximity to the
railroad and the intersection with TH 7.
• Strategy B7: Install in-pavement lighting. This improvement increases the visibility of
the crossing and heightens driver awareness of a trail user in the crossing, which would
help to clarify the right-of-way. If this strategy is implemented the trail crossing would
need to be designated as a marked crosswalk. Based on various system designs, the LED
lighting can be seen by drivers from a distance of 500-1,000 feet away (depending on
installation, etc.). The effect from potential damage due to winter maintenance is always a
concern. The LED in-pavement lights typically sit approximately 1/2” above the finished
pavement surface. R esearch has shown that these systems typically make it through
winter climates, with snow and snow maintenance, with no appreciable damage to the
LED in-pavement lights. Procurement and installation costs can range from $8,000 –
$13,000.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 14
• Strategy B8: Install a pedestrian-activated signal such as a HAWK system. This
improvement would increase the safety for trail users at the crossing by requiring all
motorists to stop, improving visibility and clarifying the right-of-way. However, due to
the close proximity of this trail crossing to the railroad immediately to the south, which
has cross bucks with flashing lights on each side of the roadway, in addition to overhead
flashing lights for the railroad, it was determined that additional flashing lights would
create confusion with the railroad crossing. In addition, since the speed of bicyclists is
greater than pedestrians, they may not push the button to activate the HAWK signal, and
once activated, they may not wait until the proper red indication. This may decrease
motorists’ respect for the HAWK system and reduce overall compliance. Other options
such as the in-pavement lighting would be recommended prior to this item to increase the
visibility of the crossing.
H:\Projects\7627\Reports\120126_Wooddale-Beltline Trail Xing Proj Imp Plan.doc
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 15
APPENDIX A
Wooddale Striping Plan Layout
and
Cost Estimate
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 16
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA
=
1
5
S
Q
’REM = 48 S
Q
’
PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’REM
=
48 SQ ’PERIME
T
E
R
=
3
0
’
AREA
=
1
5
S
Q
’
REM =
48
SQ
’
PERIM
E
T
E
R
=
30
’
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA
=
1
5
SQ
’REM =
4
8
S
Q
’PERIME
T
ER
=
3
0
’
SHEET
OF
DRAWN BY
213
Date License #
Print Name:
DESIGNED BY
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
CHECKED BY
NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION
10:39:48 AM2/8/2012h:\projects\6048\HI-MU\Base\7627\6048_stp02.dgn...\HI-MU\Base\7627\6048_stp02.dgn
S. PRUSAK
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COMM. NO. 6048
J. POND
S. VANG
WOODDALE AVENUE TRAIL CROSSING
CITY PROJECT NO.
S.P.
STATE PROJECT NO.
B
BRIDGE NO. 27B65
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
3
5TH
ST
WALABAMA AVE SZARTHAN AVE SBRIDGE NO. 27B65
TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILRO
A
D
HENNEPIN COUNTY
REGIONAL TRAIL
3
6TH
ST
W
S FRONTAGE RD
BRUNSWICK AVE
E.B. T.H. 7
W.B. T.H. 7 WOODDALE AVEAREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
PERIMETER 30 FTREM 35 SFAREA 15 SF
1000
scale in feet
50
A
B
C
STRIPING NOTES:
SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS AND DETAILS
D
1
1
GENERAL NOTE:CONFILCTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO BE REMOVED AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD.
E
E
F
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) - EPOXY
4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY
4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY
24" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (THRU ARROW) - EPOXY
CROSSWALK MARKING - POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
12" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXYG
F
F
G
G
LEGEND
INPLACE PAVEMENT MARKING
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKING
NOTE:CROSSWALK MARKINGS TO BE REPLACED TO BE
RELOCATED 2’ CLOSER TO INTERSECTION.
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SEE BELOW INSET FOR ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE STRIPING/CONSTRUCTION
F
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 17
H:\PROJECTS\7627\7627 Cost Estimate.xlsSRF NO. 0117627By:Checked:ENGINEER'S ESTIMATEWOODDALE AVENUEBy: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.Page 1 OF 1PRINTED: 2/8/2012SUBTOTALESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNIT COSTCOST2021.501 MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.002102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 330 $2.00 $660.002102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LIN FT 160 $0.50 $80.002582.501 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) EPOXY EACH 3 $120.00 $360.002582.501 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (THRU ARROW) EPOXY EACH 1 $120.00 $120.002582.502 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 220 $0.60 $132.002582.502 12" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 70 $5.50 $385.002582.502 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 440 $0.60 $264.002582.502 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 220 $6.00 $1,320.002582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING-POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN) SQ FT 216 $15.00 $3,240.00ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:$9,561.00* Cost estimate based on median extension at South Frontage Road with pavement striping only.** Alternative layout with median extension accomplished using concrete pavement and striping would result in a cost estimate of approximately $21,500.ITEM DESCRIPTIONITEM NO.UNITWOODDALE AVE STRIPING IMPROVEMENTSENGINEER'S ESTIMATE *Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 18
EXHIBIT A
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 19
EXHIBIT B
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options Page 20
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5
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: Business Park Zoning District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to allow for discussion of the proposed Business Park Zoning
District prior to formal adoption.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the new proposed Business Park Zoning District consistent with the goals of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Business Park Land Use category and what should the procedure and
timing for rezoning be?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update in late 2009. As part of the
update, a new land use category of Business Park was created, and a number of parcels were
guided for future Business Park uses. The purpose for this category is stated as:
• Encouraging the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse
mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
• Application of the category for larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide:
A greater diversity of jobs
Higher development densities and jobs per acre
Higher quality site and building architectural design
Increased tax revenues for the community
• Appropriate uses may include office, office showroom- warehousing, research and
development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and
medical laboratories.
• Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office
and light industrial uses of the employment center.
Business Park Zoning:
The Planning Commission has reviewed and proposed draft language for a new Business Park
Zoning District that would bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the direction set in
the Comprehensive Plan. Over several meetings, the draft Business Park ordinance was revised
and improved, and reviewed for its possible impacts and relation to other parts of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The proposed new Business Park district is intended to be applied to the properties guided in the
Comprehensive Plan for Business Park uses. The new ordinance would bring the Zoning
Ordinance into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan by creating a zoning district to use in
the areas guided for Business Park. Future City Council action will be needed to apply the
Business Park zoning to specific parcels.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
Ordinance Details:
Development of the Business Park Zoning District began following adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The draft language was reviewed in late 2010 and early 2011 by the
Planning Commission. Issues were raised about the different uses that were to be allowed and
the performance standards for new buildings within the district. The district is something of a
hybrid between the Industrial Park and Office districts, as it would allow for some light assembly
and manufacturing, but has a greater emphasis on office and medical office types of uses. The
latest draft includes three new land use categories to be encouraged within the Business Park
Zoning District, including:
• Research and Development
• Light Assembly
• Low Impact Manufacturing and Processing
Summary Table – Business Park compared to Office and Industrial Park
Performance Standard / Use Business Park Office Industrial Park
Outdoor storage Prohibited Prohibited Accessory Use
Hours of operation Limited when
adjacent to
residential
No restrictions Permit needed for overnight
use when adjacent to
residential
Offices Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Permit
Banks / Medical Offices Permitted Permitted Not permitted
Restaurants / Retail / Service Permitted if < 25%
of building
Permitted Permitted only in a Planned
Unit Development
Light manufacturing Conditional Use
Permit
Not permitted Permitted
Heavy manufacturing Not permitted Not permitted Permitted
Warehouse / Storage Permitted if < 50%
of the building
Not permitted Permitted
Large item retail (i.e.,
furniture)
Permitted if < 15%
of the building
Not permitted Permitted if < 15% of the
building
Planned Unit Developments Only jobs oriented Unrestricted Only retail / service
Setbacks when adjacent to
residential
30 feet or building
height
Half of building
height
35 feet or use of a formula
Maximum building height 110 feet 240 feet 75 feet
Maximum floor area ratio 2.0 1.5 0.5
The new Business Park Zoning District has been drafted with the intent that it could be applied
throughout the City. The performance standards and new land use categories of the district are
intended to help steer future redevelopment toward uses that meet the broad goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the important goal to increase the overall density of jobs within
Business Park areas. This may lead to changes that reduce the level of truck traffic and heavy
manufacturing, and increase the amount of office and light assembly taking place in the area.
The ordinance allows for greater building height than allowed in the Industrial Park district, but
lesser heights than in the Office district. It maintains sensitivities to adjacency to single family
residential areas of the City, something that is reflective of the entire Zoning Ordinance. The
draft ordinance is attached for review.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
It is important to note that most of the parcels guided for Business Park in the Comprehensive
Plan are in close proximity to future LRT stations. In such locations, it is possible that additional
zoning changes may be necessary prior to the commencement of LRT service. The Beltline
Design Guidelines process, for example, may result in some specific recommendations for
zoning changes to help implement the particular character of redevelopment called for in the
guidelines. Further information about station area planning and future zoning needs will emerge
as planning studies for the stations are completed.
Public Engagement:
The selection process for parcels to be designated as Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan
included several meetings with affected property and business owners. A total of 55 parcels
were guided for future Business Park uses, as depicted on the attached maps.
Staff has held several meetings with individual property owners in the area to discuss and obtain
input about the proposed Business Park Zoning District regulations. In addition, a large group
meeting to discuss the draft ordinance was held on June 22nd, 2011. All property owners and
businesses guided for Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan were invited to the meeting, and
a total of eight people attended and provided input into the draft ordinance. Business and
property owners were also notified directly of the Planning Commission public hearing for
consideration of the ordinance. There were no business or property owners present at the
Planning Commission public hearing. Property owners will be able to request rezoning after the
ordinance is in place.
The Planning Commission, after further discussing the draft ordinance, recommended approval.
Future Actions:
If adopted, there would be information provided to owners of property designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as Business Park. However, no rezoning of individual properties is
included as part of the proposed action at the present time. If the ordinance is adopted, Staff will
begin a process to consider rezoning some properties within those areas designated as Business
Park in the Comprehensive Plan. Any rezoning process will include collaboration with property
owners, businesses, and residents of the affected areas.
Options for rezoning could include:
1. Immediately rezone some or all of the parcels guided for Business Park uses in the
Comprehensive Plan. This could result in some businesses or buildings in the district
becoming “non-conforming.” In that case, non-conforming uses can continue under the
original zoning but could not expand or grow and would need to relocate to an
appropriate zoning district if expansion was needed to meet their business goals.
2. Rezoning Business Park guided parcels as specific development proposals are brought
forward. Moving forward in this manner is less proactive than Option #1, but would not
significantly impede the redevelopment process in most cases. Because rezoning is a
discretionary action by the City Council, this option allows for a greater level of review
and scrutiny of any given redevelopment proposal. The downside to this option is that
undesired industrial uses in the affected areas could continue and possibly expand.
3. Wait to rezone the parcels guided for Business Park until station area planning is
complete or until LRT service begins. Additional station area planning is underway and
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
expected at each St. Louis Park station. The planning processes for these station areas
may result in additional recommendations for zoning changes, which could be
implemented at some future date.
Summary:
The proposed action to adopt the Business Park Zoning District conforms to previous action by
the City Council, including the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. At this time, no
process has been established to rezone properties to Business Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Business Park Zoning District – Proposed Text
2030 Comprehensive Plan – Business Park (Land Use Chapter)
2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Excerpts
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS § 36-231
DIVISION 7. BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 36-231. Purpose of division.
The provisions of this division deal with business park uses of land and structures in the city.
Sec. 36-232. Business Park (BP) district restrictions and performance standards.
No structure or premises within any BP district shall be used for any use allowed as permitted,
permitted with conditions, Conditional Use Permit, or Planned Unit Development, unless it complies
with the following regulations:
1. All activities conducted in a BP district shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed
structure except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this chapter.
2. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited in the BP district.
3. All delivery service entrances to a building in the BP district shall be from a public
alley, service alley, or off-street parking lot.
4. No vehicular curb-cuts shall be permitted within a distance of 50 feet from any
intersection, unless the City Engineer determines that such a curb-cut is necessary and
will be safe for pedestrians or bicyclists using nearby trails, sidewalks, or roadways.
5. Structures shall not generate significant traffic on local residential streets. Where
possible, structures shall be accessed from a roadway identified in the Comprehensive
Plan as a collector or arterial.
6. Off-street parking shall not be located between any buildings and an adjacent
residential property line.
7. The Zoning Administrator shall review plans for all loading docks, which to the
greatest extent possible should be screened from the right-of-way and should not be
located between the principal building and any adjacent residential property line.
8. Truck activity routes shall be reviewed to account for the expected level of pedestrian
traffic. Such routes should be designed to minimize impacts to pedestrian and bicycle
routes and safety issues during periods of truck activity.
9. The processes and equipment used to conduct the business of a primary use on any
site in the BP district shall meet the following requirements:
a. Vibration. Any vibration discernible beyond the property line to the human
sense of feeling for three minutes or more duration (cumulative) in any one
hour and any vibration producing a particle velocity of more than 0.035
inch per second are prohibited.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 5
b. Glare or heat. Any operation producing intense glare or heat shall be
performed within an enclosure so as not to be perceptible at the property
line.
c. Noise. Noise levels both inside and outside of buildings must meet federal,
state and local requirements which may be amended from time to time.
d. Air pollution. All emissions shall meet federal, state and local requirements
which may be amended from time to time.
10. Uses located upon parcels located adjacent to a parcel zoned, guided or used for
residential purposes may operate only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
The Zoning Administrator may, in writing, waive this performance standard if it can
be demonstrated that overnight operations will have no negative effects on adjacent
properties.
Sec. 36-233. BP business park district.
(a) Purpose / effect. The purposes of the BP business park district are to:
1. Encourage the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse
mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
2. Allow for redevelopment and intensification of sites to provide a greater diversity of
employment opportunities within the community, increase development densities and
jobs per acre, and improve overall site aesthetics and building design.
3. Shape redevelopment to meet the requirements of the market to provide efficient
building types with sufficient access, high clear heights, truck courts, and aesthetically
pleasing building exteriors and sites.
4. Encourage and support the appropriate evolution and expansion of individual
businesses to improve the climate for business growth and foster conditions favorable
to increasing the amount of finished square footage and the number of jobs per acre in
BP areas.
5. Protect planned Business Park areas from encroachment from non-affiliated or
incompatible uses, while enhancing their compatibility with nearby residential areas.
6. Promote and support the redevelopment or rehabilitation of physically and
economically obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites.
7. Promote business park developments that utilize efficient land use and building
designs, including multi-story buildings, multi-tenant buildings, and structured
parking.
8. Encourage and support new business park developments that are designed as
employment centers that are integrated in to the community with strong connections
to adjacent public streets and spaces, natural features, transit, and other community
amenities.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 6
9. Encourage shared parking between uses, including flexible parking arrangements to
allow for multi-modal use of available transit and regional trail facilities.
10. Regulate the trade and commerce of the community.
11. Provide opportunities for multi-modal activity on streets and an improved, desirable
environment for pedestrians and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses with a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 are permitted
in the BP district:
1. Banks.
2. Business / trade school.
3. College / University.
4. Libraries.
5. Medical and dental office or laboratory.
6. Museums/art galleries.
7. Offices.
8. Parks and open spaces.
9. Parks and recreation.
10. Police and fire stations.
11. Research and Development.
12. Transit stations.
(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. Catering. The conditions are as follows:
a. Any exhaust system venting to the outdoors shall be located away from
residential areas.
b. Outside storage of catering vehicles or associated equipment is prohibited.
2. Adult day care. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor area per adult
under care dedicated to outdoor activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park.
3. Communication antennas. The conditions are as follows:
a. Antennas must be attached to an existing structure.
b. Antennas shall be subject to all provisions of Section 36-368,
“Communication Towers and Antennas”.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 7
4. Educational. Educational uses for students grades K-12, subject to conditions as
follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 40 square feet of outdoor area per student
dedicated to outdoor student activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a single story building
or 50% of the ground floor in a multi-story building.
5. Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 40 square feet of outdoor area per pupil
dedicated to outdoor activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a single story building
or 50% of the ground floor in a multi-story building.
c. Provision shall be made for drop-off and pick-up of children or students.
6. Indoor entertainment, The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of a multi-use building.
b. The use must be so located as to be visible and easily accessible to pedestrians
from the public right-of-way.
7. Public Service Structures. The conditions are as follows:
a. All structures shall be located a minimum of ten feet from any parcel that is
zoned residential.
b. All service drives shall be paved.
8. Restaurants, Retail or Service. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed of 25% of the gross floor area of a multi-use building
or 50% of the ground floor area in a multi-story building, whichever is
greater.
b. The use must be so located as to be visible and easily accessible to pedestrians
from the public right-of-way.
9. Studios. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a multi-use building.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in a BP district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with all
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 36, and shall only be permitted if findings are
produced indicating that there are no adverse impacts upon the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
1. Uses allowed as “Permitted” or “Permitted with Conditions” in the BP district with a
floor area ratio (FAR) equal to or greater than 1.0.
2. Light Assembly or Low Impact Manufacturing and Processing.
3. More than one principal building.
a. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot.
4. Parking ramps.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 8
a. Parking ramps constructed as the principal use on a site shall meet the
dimensional standards of this Section.
b. Parking ramps shall meet or exceed the architectural design standards for
principal buildings found in Section 36-366.
c. A minimum of 40% of the street level frontage of a parking ramp located
adjacent to a street designated as a “Collector” or higher in the
Comprehensive Plan shall be dedicated to non-parking uses. This
requirement may be adjusted at the direction of the Planning Commission
based on specific reasons related to site design.
d. Parking ramps shall be designed so that vehicles are not visible from the
sidewalk and the only openings at street level are those to accommodate
vehicle ingress and egress.
e. Snow removal areas shall not be located in the front yard or side yard
abutting a street.
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. A structure or land in a BP district may be dedicated to non-
residential uses meeting the purpose and effect of the Zoning District through the PUD process, if
such uses are primarily dedicated to increasing employment density and furthering the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Such uses shall comply with the requirements of the performance standards
in Section 36-232. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to dimensional standards and
densities are provided under section 36-367.
(f) Accessory uses. Within any BP district, the following shall be permitted accessory uses,
subject to any required conditions:
1. Food service. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must be located on the ground floor.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the building’s total floor area.
2. Incidental repair or processing ancillary to the principal use that does not exceed 5
percent of the gross floor area, subject to the following conditions:
a. The use shall be located to the rear of the principal structure.
b. The use shall meet all conditions of Sections 36-232 (a) and (b).
3. Large Item Retail Sales. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 15% of the building’s total floor area.
4. Parking ramps, subject to the conditions for parking ramps found in Section 36-233
(d)(6).
5. Parking lots.
6. Post Office Customer Service.
7. Showroom.
8. Warehouse / Storage.
(g) Dimensional standards. The dimensional standards are as follows:
1. The height of structures or buildings on sites within the BP zoning district shall be
limited as follows:
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 9
a. Sites located immediately adjacent to property zoned R-1 or R-2 shall be
limited to the lesser of four (4) stories or 55 feet in height.
b. Sites separated by a public right-of-way or not immediately adjacent to
property zoned R-1 or R-2 shall be limited to the lesser of eight (8) stories or
110 feet in height.
2. The floor area ratio for structures or buildings within the BP district shall not exceed
2.0, nor shall the floor area ratio be less than 0.4.
3. Required yard depth (building setbacks) shall follow the requirements of Table 36-
233 (a) except when superseded by the following:
a. No building shall be located closer than 30 feet or the building height,
whichever is greater, to a single family residential property line.
b. The maximum front yard or side yard abutting a street (build-to line) may be
increased to 25 feet from the property line if a courtyard, plaza, or seating
area is incorporated into the development adjacent to the public street.
c. The maximum yard (build-to line) requirement shall apply to at least 50% of
a structure’s elevation along the front yard or side yard abutting a street.
4. Each lot shall contain designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) at the ratio of 0.12
times the gross lot area, with the following exceptions and conditions:
a. DORA shall not be required for any building or portion of a building
dedicated to warehouse, showroom, parking ramp, or parking lot uses.
b. DORA may be reduced by up to 25% if it is connected to and located within
a quarter-mile of the regional trail system.
c. DORA shall be developed into functional and aesthetic yard areas, plazas,
courtyards, and/or pedestrian facilities compatible with or enlarging upon
existing pedestrian links and open space.
d. DORA shall be sited to enhance ecological habitat and increase opportunities
for shared public use with the City’s system of parks and open space
whenever possible.
Secs. 36-234-36-240. Reserved.
Table 36-233 (a)
Front Rear Side Side yard abutting
a street
Minimum
yard 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Maximum
yard 10 feet None None 10 feet
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 10
Environmental Stewardship
34 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
B. Land Use Plan
IV-B16 ComprehensivePlan
VIII. CIV- Civic
The Civic land use category is intended for public buildings and
uses as well as similar private uses, such as schools, government
buildings, places of assembly, community centers, libraries and
non-profit institutions.
IX. BP - Business Park
The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage
the creation of significant employment centers that
accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses
and jobs. The Business Park designation should be applied
to larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide a greater
diversity of jobs, higher development densities and jobs per
acre, higher quality site and building architectural design,
and increased tax revenues for the community. Office, office-
showroom-warehousing, research and development services,
light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly,
and medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for this
land use category. Some retail and service uses may be allowed
as supporting uses for the primary office and light industrial
uses of the employment center.
X. P - Parks and Open Space
The Parks & Open Space land use category includes all public
parks and open space land, as well as public recreational
facilities, such as the Recreational Center. It also encompasses
lakes and waterways, such as Bass Lake and Minnehaha Creek.
This category is intended for areas which are reserved for active
and passive recreational uses, natural amenities, protected
natural areas, and the City’s major stormwater retention and
drainage areas.
XI. ROW – Public Right-of-Way
The Public Right-of-Way land use category includes right-of-
way for both streets, sidewalks, trails and drainageways.
XII. RRR - Railroad
The Railroad land use category includes right-of-way used for
railway and trail purposes. Some of the land is owned by rail
companies; some of the land is owned by the Hennepin County
Regional Rail Authority and a portion
of it is used as a multi-purpose regional trail operated by
Three Rivers Park District.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 11
Zoning Districts
Parcels guided for Business Park use
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2030 Comprehensive Plan MapBeltline Blvd. Area
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 12
Zoning Districts
Parcels guided for Business Park use
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2030 Comprehensive Plan MapLouisiana Ave. Area
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 13
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6
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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. Council members may want to note some information for use in future
discussions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Staff is providing some of this information as a follow up from the February
27th Study Session and other information in preparation for future discussions on this proposed
initiative.
BACKGROUND:
History - At the June 6, 2011 Study Session Council reviewed the recently developed pedestrian
and bicycle system plan and directed staff to:
1. prepare a capital improvement program (CIP) to implement this plan
2. provide information used in the past to identify the community vs. neighborhood
sidewalk systems
3. provide information related to taking over maintenance responsibility of the
neighborhood sidewalk system
At the September 12, 2011 Study Session staff presented a detailed draft CIP which utilized a
proactive, high priority approach to build all the trails, community sidewalks, on-street bikeways,
and bridges identified in the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan within 10 years. After
discussing the CIP, sidewalk classifications and maintenance responsibilities, Council requested
staff to:
1. develop a specific process and financing plan to implement the proposed ten year capital
improvement plan
2. focus on trails and sidewalks and to identify possible funding sources outside the City
3. provide further information regarding additional resources to design, deliver, and
maintain the proposed bicycle and pedestrian system expansion
At the February 27, 2012 Study Session, staff provided detailed maps showing the existing and
proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems based on the previous developed plan and CIP.
As a result of the discussion, Council decided to continue with the existing “Community” and
“Neighborhood” sidewalk systems as they exist today. Council then requested staff to:
a. prepare a definition for “Community Sidewalks” and one for “Neighborhood Sidewalks”.
b. review the prioritization used in developing the CIP to ensure it reflected needs of the
community
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Definition of Walks – staff has developed the following definitions for Community and
Neighborhood sidewalks as they pertain to our city:
Community Sidewalks - are intended to link activity nodes in the City and to provide
logical routes through town; they are intended to benefit the larger community. They generally
create a network to major points of interest such as transit, schools, shopping areas, parks and
other key community destinations in an attempt to make important connections within the City
and to neighboring cities’ systems. Most of these walks are located along collector and arterial
roadways carrying many thousands of vehicles per day. The planned system attempts to provide
pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and/or trails) at roughly ¼-mile intervals across the community.
Community walks link residents to:
• “activity nodes” with multiple destinations (e.g., the Library / High School / retail node
and the Park Commons / Miracle Mile node)
• Transit nodes
• Regional trails
Neighborhood Sidewalks – these walks generally occur in the established older
neighborhoods within the City and are described as being more of localized interest and use.
They provide accessibility for pedestrians within their immediate area to transit, schools, parks,
commercial areas, and the “Community Walk” network. They also serve as a safe place for
smaller children to play near their home as well as to serve as informal places for neighbors to
meet. Neighborhood walks link residents to:
• Community walks or trails (e.g., Minnetonka Blvd or W26th St.)
• Their neighbors
• Single-destinations (park, school)
As a final note on this, staff has attached Exhibit A - a conceptual grid system that was
developed for and included in the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan. Proposed
“Community Walks” are based on this grid concept (as well as other community interests
described above).
Expected Future Public Input – Based on past experience the Council should expect to hear
the following when the public involvement process is commenced in the future.
In Opposition:
• There will be negative impacts to trees
• There will be negative impacts to walls and fences
• Sidewalks and trails will be too close to homes/buildings
• Driveways will be too short to park cars
• Sidewalks and trails will lead to an increase in outsiders and in crime
• There is no need for walks or trails – walking in the street is fine
• There will be a decrease in safety due to additional vehicle conflicts at driveways
• There will be a negative impact to property values
• There will be a decrease in safety due to children falling off retaining walls
• Winter maintenance needs are not or will not be met
• There will be discourteous or disrespectful use of the walks and trails by users
• There is no room to construct the walks or trails
• These will have a negative aesthetic impact
• This is too costly, lower taxes – do not raise them
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
• Bicycle traffic will cause or increase congestion
• These will destroy the character of the neighborhood
In Support:
• This will provide for increased safety
• This supports the Children First initiative
• This will provide for increased recreational opportunities (walking and biking)
• This will increase community livability
• Neighbors helping one another (maintenance activities) and informally meeting in public
spaces increases community building
• This increases community connections
• This will aids disabled persons
• This will aid access to transit
• Streets are too dangerous to walk and bike on
• This will reduce dependence on automobiles
Suggestions to minimize impacts (or eliminate some plan elements):
• Put walks right at the curb line
• Narrow up the streets – do not take more property.
• Put walks on only one side of the street
• Some walks are improperly classified (community vs. neighborhood) and some are really
not needed at all
• Do more “on street trails” (share the road) to lessen property impacts
• Put trails or walks elsewhere in the City (where needed more)
• Let neighborhoods decide what should be done in their area
• Do less, this seems to be more than what is needed
• Do not do - use the money for other purposes (street lighting, housing, other)
Staff has attached Exhibit B listing the pros and cons associated with this initiative. This exhibit
was developed during the last discussion (during 1999 and 200) regarding the expansion of
walks and trails in the city.
Future Policy Questions – staff has developed the following list of policy questions that will
likely need to be answered as this initiative progresses:
a. Which new sidewalks should be Community Sidewalks (built, maintained, and repaired /
replaced by the City at City cost)?
b. Which new sidewalks should be Neighborhood Sidewalks (built and maintained by
adjacent property owners at their cost; repaired replaced by the City at City cost)?
c. There are gaps in the future sidewalk system; how do we justify or explain the need to fill
some gaps now while leaving other gaps?
d. Should some sidewalks be removed from the plan? Should others be added? Basically,
does Council support the sidewalk plan as shown?
e. Does Council agree with the construction priorities shown on the maps for sidewalks,
trails, bikeways? Should some segments be accelerated or delayed from that shown?
f. How should construction of Neighborhood Sidewalks be funded?
• by property owner at their cost?
• by city at property owner cost?
• by city at city cost?
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
g. Creation of bikeways may require removal of on street parking; will that be acceptable?
Or should on street biking be accomplished without the removal of on street parking?
h. Should right of way be obtained to do this?
i. Are current sidewalk maintenance standards (snow removal) acceptable for Community
Sidewalks? For Neighborhood Sidewalks?
j. What are the current construction standards and are they appropriate for this work?
k. What type of public involvement process does Council desire?
Next Steps
Staff has developed the following tentative process and schedule to consider implementing this
plan:
Council reviews and provides direction on proposed sidewalk, trail,
and bikeway systems and sidewalk classifications
April 16
Council reviews and determines CIP priorities April 23
Council considers remaining policy questions May 14
Council reviews financial and public involvement plans May 29
Staff conducts public involvement / input process June – September
Council adopts proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems along
with, final policies, and the CIP
October
Construction May 2013 – Oct 2025
Based on the process associated with the adoption of the last sidewalk / trail plan and CIP, it is
possible this schedule could be extended for months to a year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Undertaking this initiative is in direct alignment with one of the Strategic Directions the City
Council originally adopted in 2007 as follows:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
In addition to what was articulated above, staff felt it would be beneficial for Council to have a
well-defined purpose and goals as an aid in discussing and deciding the policy questions
associated with this initiative as well as verify if it is in alignment with the community vision. In
other words, what are the “ends” or “outcomes” we are trying to achieve? In that regard,
the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan recommends an approach to developing citywide
pedestrian and bicycling systems, addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing
their importance. It suggests a strategy for implementation and identifies preliminary costs for
installation. It looks at how existing areas of concern might be improved and where and how
new walks and trails should be installed. To better define the ends or outcomes we are attempting
to achieve, staff has developed the following and desires Council input.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives - The following goals and objectives were developed for this planning
effort:
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
– establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile
– establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile
– close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
traffic calming strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Conceptual Grid System
Exhibit B – Pros and Cons
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 6
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Exhibit A
Conceptual Grid System
Exhibit B
Pros Cons
1. Increased pedestrian safety 1. Additional snow removal
2. Improved access to transit/commuting 2. Additional cost (capital & maintenance)
3. Increased recreational opportunities 3. Reduced yard size
4. Decreased need for autos/vehicles 4. Removal of trees
5. Provides links to Community facilities/amenities 5. Relocation of walls/fences
6. Provides links to neighboring Communities 6. Reduced aesthetics
7. Provides links to Regional Trail System 7. Shortened driveways/parking
8. Provides for traffic calming 8. Driveway/trail conflicts – decreased safety
9. Provides for public spaces 9. Retaining walls – decreased safety
10. Provides opportunities for Community building 10. Litter & pet waste concern
11. Improves access for the disabled/disadvantaged 11. Adverse impact to area culture
12. Improved aesthetics 12. Reduced on street parking
13. Reduced street widths/snow removal 13. Loss of personal privacy
14. Provides for more effective snow removal 14. Increased bicycle congestion
15. Reduced negative environmental impacts
16. Provides for increased Community connections
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No.7)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 7
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8
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:
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide background about the evaluation and potential
revisions to the Outdoor Lighting standards in the Zoning Ordinance. It is expected the Council
will discuss this issue at an upcoming Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What are the appropriate and enforceable lighting standards?
BACKGROUND:
Recent concerns by citizens in relation to outdoor recreational lighting have prompted staff to
evaluate our ordinance provisions. In particular, the following items were identified to be
addressed:
• The feasibility of achieving the city’s requirements related to seeing a light source from off-site;
• The glare and spillover light requirements;
• How to regulate a wide variety of types of outdoor lighting;
• Clarifying the measurement methods.
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
To address these items, the City hired HKGi to research issues and practices of regulating
outdoor lighting, and draft a revised ordinance. Attached is a background memo highlighting the
research HKGi has completed to date, along with recommendations for amending the ordinance.
The memo suggests the revised ordinance address such items as:
• Best practices for outdoor lighting
• Common measurement methods
• Achievable requirements
• Standards for lighting: distribution; maximum levels; shielding; heights and hours for lighting
HKGi is beginning to draft standards and requirements for the city to consider in amending the
zoning ordinance. Those items will be the subject of the discussion at the upcoming Study Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The consulting fees will be paid from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Outdoor Lighting Summary Memo from HKGi
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: St. Louis Park Planning Staff
From: Jeff Miller (HKGi)
Date: March 5, 2012
Re: Exterior Lighting Ordinance Study
As part of the City’s Exterior Lighting Ordinance Study, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.’s (HKGI) work has
included review and clarification of the City’s critical exterior lighting ordinance issues, research of
national/local lighting best practices and model ordinances, and summarization of findings relevant to
St. Louis Park’s issues. Although our research has been focused on outdoor recreational lighting, in
particular, we also identified general opportunities for improving the City’s Exterior Lighting Ordinance.
This literature review and analysis of the City’s ordinance establishes the basis for general
recommendations of potential amendments to the City’s Exterior Lighting Ordinance. Based on these
general recommendations, we are preparing an updated Exterior Lighting Ordinance for consideration
by the City.
I. Critical Issues Related to Exterior Lighting Ordinance
As a result of recent concerns expressed by neighbors of the new Benilde-St. Margaret’s outdoor
recreational facilities and the City’s recent field survey of outdoor recreational facilities throughout the
community, the City has identified potential issues with its Exterior Lighting Ordinance. Based on
consultation with City Staff and our preliminary review of this ordinance, it is our understanding that the
critical issues to be addressed by the Exterior Lighting Ordinance Study include the following:
a. Feasibility of achieving the City’s ordinance requirement (c)(7) under General Provisions which
states that “Lighting equipment shall not be placed or permitted to remain on a site if the light
source or its reflected image can be viewed directly from a location off the site…” for both
outdoor recreational lighting and other lighting situations.
b. Appropriateness of the current glare or spillover light requirement when applied to the
specialized and complex needs of outdoor recreational lighting, since the City’s field survey
found that most of the existing outdoor recreational lighting is not meeting this requirement.
c. Since outdoor recreational lighting involves a wide variety of unique viewing needs, technical
complexities, and limited days/hours of operation, the City’s current ordinance designates it as a
separate section. However, new or replacement outdoor recreational lighting is required to
meet most of the same standards as all other exterior lighting. Need to determine what types of
standards are desirable and achievable for outdoor recreational lighting.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 2
Page 2 of 5
d. The current ordinance contains measurement requirements that are scattered across multiple
standards and reference an outside source – IES Handbook 5th Addition. This situation fails to
establish a clear measurement method. Additionally, since outdoor recreational lighting is often
intended to illuminate vertical surfaces rather than horizontal surfaces, measurement methods
and standards may differ from other lighting situations.
II. Best Practices Literature Reviewed
HKGi has conducted a review and evaluation of the best practices literature for exterior lighting
ordinances relevant to the City of St. Louis Park exterior lighting issues. This review encompassed other
cities’ lighting ordinances, model lighting ordinances, and other best practices literature, including the
following:
a. Batinsey, John, “New Jersey Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Guide”, 2008.
b. Chittenden County (VT) Regional Planning Commission, “Outdoor Lighting Manual for Vermont
Municipalities”, May 1996.
c. City of Mankato, MN, “Exterior Lighting Ordinance”.
d. City of Plymouth, MN, “Exterior Lighting Ordinance”.
e. City of Raleigh (NC), “Code of Ordinances (Part 10 – Planning and Development, Chapter 2 –
Zoning, Article E – Supplementary Regulations and Exemptions, Section 10-2089 – Lighting)”,
2001.
f. City of Redmond (WA), “Community Development Guide (Part 20D – Citywide Regulations,
Section 20D.90 – Exterior Lighting Standards)”, 2001.
g. City of Rochester, MN, “Exterior Lighting Standards Ordinance”.
h. County of Coconino (AZ), “Zoning Ordinance (Section 17 – Lighting)”, 2001.
i. County of Fairfax (VA), “Zoning Ordinance (Article 14 – Performance Standards, Part 9 - Outdoor
Lighting Standards)”, 2003.
j. County of Fort Bend (TX), “Orders for Regulation of Outdoor Lighting in the Unincorporated
Areas of Fort Bend County, Texas”, 2004.
k. Crawford, David L., “Bright Days, Dark Nights: Regulating Light”, Zoning Practice, July 2004.
l. International Dark-Sky Association, “Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook” (Version 1.14),
September 2002.
m. International Dark-Sky Association, “Simple Guidelines for Lighting Regulations for Small
Communities, Urban Neighborhoods, and Subdivisions”.
n. International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) and Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), “Joint IDA-IES
Model Lighting Ordinance with User’s Guide”, June 15, 2011.
o. Metropolitan Government of Louisville-Jefferson County (KY), “Land Development Code
(Chapter 4 - Generally Applicable Development Standards, Part I – General Compatibility
Standards, Section 4.1.3 – Lighting)”, 2010.
p. Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council, “Model Outdoor Lighting Ordinance for Inclusion in
Zoning Ordinances”, September 2011.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 3
Page 3 of 5
q. Prince William County (VA), “Zoning Ordinance (Article II Part 250 – General Performance
Standards, Section 32-250.200 – Outdoor Lighting)”, 2004.
r. Town of Holly Springs (NC), “Unified Development Ordinance (Section 7 – Special Regulations,
Chapter 7.02 – Lighting Standards)”, 2010.
s. Village of East Hampton (NY), “Village Code (Chapter 188 – Outdoor Lighting”, 2005.
t. Virginia Outdoor Lighting Taskforce (VOLT), “VOLT Simple Model Lighting Ordinance”, 2010.
III. Findings Relevant to SLP’s Exterior Lighting Issues
Our research and evaluation resulted in the following findings:
a. Due to the unique needs, technical complexities, and limited days/hours of operation of outdoor
recreational lighting, it is typically not subject to all of the general standards of an exterior
lighting ordinance. Municipal ordinances typically treat outdoor recreational lighting in one of
three ways:
1. an exempt use with special regulations;
2. an exempt use with special regulations and requirement of a lighting plan;
3. a conditional use requiring a permit.
b. The City’s ordinance requirement (c)(7) under General Provisions of “Lighting equipment shall
not be placed or permitted to remain on a site if the light source or its reflected image can be
viewed directly from a location off the site…” seems to be very atypical. In particular, this
requirement was not found in any of the Outdoor Recreational Lighting sections of ordinances.
c. The City’s ordinance (c)(4) under General Provisions requires that glare or spillover light be
limited to 0.5 FC at the property line of any abutting residential parcel and 1.0 FC at the
property line of any abutting commercial or industrial parcel or public right-of-way. New or
replacement outdoor recreational lighting is subject to this requirement. Our research found
that these traditional glare/spillover light standards vary somewhat by place. For residential
property lines, they range from 0.1 to 2.0. For non-residential property lines and public right-of-
way, they range from 0.75 to 2.0. Some city ordinances and model ordinances do not include
specific numeric limits; instead, the focus is on requirements for the types of fixtures required
(e.g. full cut-off), shielding and maximum wattage allowed. In particular, the model ordinances
do not favor the traditional method of defining spillover light with maximum FC standards. By
focusing on the maximum light level at the property line, the traditional method fails to address
light that is not directed toward the ground and glare. Rather than relying on spillover light
maximums, the model ordinances recommend addressing outdoor recreational lighting issues
with the requirement of submission of a lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting designer.
d. Best practice and model ordinances contain stronger requirements for shielding, certain types of
light fixtures, aiming, and glare control packages, in general and for outdoor recreational
lighting. The City’s ordinance language is not very specific on this issue.
e. The model ordinances advise against the inclusion of references to outside sources. For
instance, the City’s ordinance refers to the IES Handbook 5th Addition. It is preferable to include
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 4
Page 4 of 5
definitions in the lighting ordinance. The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not appear to include any
definitions related to exterior lighting.
f. Many best practice and model ordinances contain standards for controlling the maximum
allowed lighting levels on outdoor recreational areas rather than spillover lighting levels, which
can ultimately contribute to reducing spillover lighting levels.
g. Many best practice and model ordinances contain clear and specific descriptions of the required
measurement methods for lighting levels. Currently, the City’s measurement method
requirements are scattered between three standards – (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4). It may be
appropriate for measurement methods to differ between outdoor recreational lighting and
other lighting situations.
h. The establishment of “lighting zones” offers a method for establishing lighting levels for
different types of areas within a community based upon the types of activities located there,
e.g. natural areas, predominately low density residential areas, business districts, transportation
corridors, and recreational areas. The City of Plymouth has three lighting zones and an official
Lighting Zone Map that essentially functions like an overlay district.
IV. General Recommendations for SLP’s Ordinance
Based on our finding from the literature review of exterior lighting best practices and model ordinances,
we have identified some general recommendations that the City should consider for improving its
Exterior Lighting Ordinance, including the following:
a. Remove the reference requirement (c)(2) to the outside source, IES Handbook 5th Addition, and
add a Definitions section to the ordinance, such as glare, luminaire, full cutoff, semi-cutoff, fully
shielded, flood light, maintained footcandles/luminance level, light trespass, indirect light and
spill light. Alternatively, definitions relating to exterior lighting could be added to the Zoning
Ordinance’s general definitions section (Section 36-4).
b. Remove requirement (c)(7) under General Provisions of “Lighting equipment shall not be placed
or permitted to remain on a site if the light source or its reflected image can be viewed directly
from a location off the site…” and replace with more specific standards for required fixtures
types, shielding, aiming, and glare control.
c. Treat outdoor recreational lighting as a special use with its own special regulations and require
submission of a lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting designer. Consider the benefits of
treating outdoor recreational lighting as a conditional use permit. In addition to submission of a
lighting plan, special regulations for outdoor recreational lighting to consider are maximum
levels of illumination allowed, appropriate measurement methods for outdoor recreational
lighting (e.g. vertical measurements), fixture shielding/aiming, fixture heights, and higher
spillover lighting maximums.
d. Consider whether other types of lighting should be treated as special uses with unique
regulations, such as service station canopies, outdoor display areas, building façade lighting, etc.
e. Consider adding sections for exempt lighting uses, temporary lights, and prohibited lights.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 5
Page 5 of 5
f. Consolidate the various measurement method requirements into a separate section.
g. Preliminary recommendation for the ordinance sections is as follows:
i. Purpose/intent
ii. Applicability
iii. Definitions
iv. General provisions/standards for exterior lighting
• Light distribution plan submission
• Maximum lighting levels
• Shielding, aiming, glare controls
• Fixture heights
• Curfews/hours of operation
v. Special uses (outdoor recreational lighting, others?)
vi. Exempt uses
vii. Temporary uses
viii. Prohibited uses
ix. Measurement
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 6
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
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:
February 2012 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of
revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These
funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent
the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 17% of the annual budget in February.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 14.6% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 13.7%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this
same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes
and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
Expenditures in most of the General Fund and Park and Recreation Departments are running
between 13% and 17% of budget through February with no significant variances. A few
variance comments for revenues and expenditures are noted below along with a general
discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through February, 49% of the license and permit revenues have been recorded in the
General Fund. This is consistent with prior years in that most of the 2012 liquor and
business license payments have already been received. In the Administration
Department, 100% of the budgeted liquor license revenues have been recorded. In the
Inspections Department, 91% of the business license revenues for the year have been
received, with most of the payments coming in late 2011 and deferred to 2012 to
accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are also
higher than budget through February at 28%.
• Intergovernmental revenue is at 23% of budget because the first 2012 DOT State Aid
payment in the amount of $260,000 was received in January. The second payment for
2012 of a slightly lesser amount will be expected in July or August.
Expenditures:
• The Community Outreach budget is at 57% because the full 2012 payment for Mediation
Services was made in January. This expenditure is a substantial portion of the
Community Outreach General Fund budget.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: February 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Parks and Recreation
Revenues:
• The Park & Recreation ice rental revenue currently appears to exceed budget at
approximately 24%. However audit entries will be made in order to recognize revenue in
the proper period. While the funds were received in 2012, any revenue actually earned in
the prior year will need to be booked back to 2011. After these adjustments, the revenues
will be back in line with budget and consistent with prior year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ -$ 15,998,292$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 2,801,255 2,368,799 1,163,477 1,205,322 49.12%
Fines & Forfeits 260,805 328,150 33,112 295,038 10.09%
Intergovernmental 1,229,595 1,163,677 273,448 890,229 23.50%
Charges for Services 1,041,986 1,270,354 15,305 1,255,049 1.20%
Miscellaneous Revenue 128,654 111,650 18,167 93,483 16.27%
Transfers In 2,550,876 2,023,003 333,500 1,689,503 16.49%
Investment Earnings - 125,000 - 125,000 0.00%
Other Income 22,686 3,450 957 2,493 27.73%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,407,933$ 23,392,375$ 1,837,965$ 21,554,410$ 7.86%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ -$ 4,171,506$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 55 6,545 0.83%
Intergovernmental 149,875 68,902 2,033 66,869 2.95%
Charges for Services 1,097,259 1,070,750 74,263 996,487 6.94%
Miscellaneous Revenue 891,796 967,900 230,919 736,981 23.86%
Other Income 6,708 42,150 25 42,125 0.06%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,146,308$ 6,327,808$ 307,296$ 6,020,512$ 4.86%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of February 29, 2012
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 840,217$ 1,012,554$ 111,817$ 900,737$ 11.04%
Accounting 604,926 641,691 95,648 546,043 14.91%
Assessing 506,076 517,840 86,857 430,983 16.77%
Human Resources 628,995 667,612 91,947 575,665 13.77%
Community Development 1,082,311 1,076,376 175,237 901,139 16.28%
Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 122,226 960,902 11.28%
Information Resources 1,423,244 1,507,579 129,824 1,377,755 8.61%
Communications & Marketing 256,537 265,426 28,418 237,008 10.71%
Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 4,671 3,514 57.07%
Total General Government 6,382,485$ 6,780,391$ 846,645$ 5,933,746$ 12.49%
Public Safety:
Police 6,943,324$ 7,273,723$ 1,182,384$ 6,091,339$ 16.26%
Fire Protection 3,061,860 3,346,931 522,046 2,824,885 15.60%
Inspectional Services 1,818,075 1,889,340 307,132 1,582,208 16.26%
Total Public Safety 11,823,260$ 12,509,994$ 2,011,562$ 10,498,432$ 16.08%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 803,310$ 389,783$ 57,426$ 332,357$ 14.73%
Public Works Engineering 816,204 927,337 123,122 804,215 13.28%
Public Works Operations 2,462,641 2,604,870 387,739 2,217,131 14.89%
Total Public Works 4,082,156$ 3,921,990$ 568,288$ 3,353,702$ 14.49%
Non-Departmental:
General 76,397$ -$ 274$ (274)$ 0.00%
Transfers Out - - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 76,397$ 180,000$ 274$ 179,726$ 0.15%
Total General Fund Expenditures 22,364,297$ 23,392,375$ 3,426,769$ 19,965,606$ 14.65%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,263,320$ 1,305,747$ 169,976$ 1,135,771$ 13.02%
Recreation Center 1,424,052 1,466,246 161,091 1,305,155 10.99%
Park Maintenance 1,472,838 1,461,645 202,273 1,259,372 13.84%
Westwood 488,550 515,456 74,583 440,873 14.47%
Environment 398,063 390,009 55,051 334,958 14.12%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,268,550 1,188,705 206,305 982,400 17.36%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,315,374$ 6,327,808$ 869,279$ 5,458,529$ 13.74%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of February 29, 2012
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 10
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:
Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information from
the City’s background check prior to City Council consideration of a premises permit application
from Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association to conduct gambling at Toby Keith’s I Love This
Bar & Grill.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council have enough information to take action on April 2 regarding consideration of a
premises gambling permit application from Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association? Please let
staff know of any questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association has submitted an application for a premises permit
to conduct lawful gambling in the form of pull-tabs inside Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill
located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard in St. Louis Park. The Hopkins Raspberry Festival
Association is a registered non-profit corporation with Minnesota Secretary of State and is listed
in good standing as of 2012. The officers are as follows:
• Charles Yunker, CEO
• Leigh Ann Drinkwine, Treasurer
• Sue Normandin, Gambling Manager
CRGE Minneapolis LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill has authorized a lease
agreement with Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association for use of their space to conduct lawful
gambling in the form of pull-tab operations.
The Plymouth Lions Club previously conducted lawful gambling at Toby Keith’s but closed
their business on January 31, 2012. They indicated to staff that they were unable to make it a
profitable venture for their organization or for the city.
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival currently operates pull tab operations at McCoy’s Public House,
3801 Grand Way in St. Louis Park and in Hopkins at the Wild Boar, 1022 Main Street in
Hopkins. This organization previously operated in St. Louis Park since April of 2002 at Al’s Bar,
which closed in July 2009, then relocated to Laredo’s at 4656 Excelsior Blvd. which also closed.
The Association helps to support the Hopkins Raspberry Festival and St. Louis Park Parktacular,
who both depend on charitable gambling funds, along with educational scholarships and
miscellaneous donations.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
State Gambling Board Authority
Gambling premises permits are issued and regulated by the State Gambling Board. The
Board may not issue a permit unless approval by resolution is received from the city
council of the city in which the organization's premises is located. (MN Statutes 349.213)
Licenses issued are perpetual and are valid unless suspended or revoked by the Board,
terminated by the organization, or if the license lapses. A license is considered lapsed if the
organization does any of the following (MN Statute 349.16):
• Failed to conduct and report any gambling sales activity within seven months from
the date of the last gambling activity.
• Failed to have a gambling manager as required.
• Failed to pay annual license and permit fees.
• Surrenders, withdraws, or otherwise terminates the license.
Findings from Police Background Investigation
The Police Department conducted a background investigation on the organization, its officers
and related personnel. In reviewing the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association with the State
Gambling Board, violations were discovered and enforced by a consent order. The state
violations are related to the financial and documentation aspects of the operation and no
compliance issues were cited regarding improper sales to minors or game fixing. If the penalty
terms were not met within the time periods prescribed, the license could have been suspended or
revoked by the State. The Gambling Control Board has indicated the Hopkins Raspberry
Festival Association is considered an active licensee (able to conduct lawful gambling) and
remains in good standing at this time. Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association admitted to all
allegations. The violations, penalties and status of the consent order are as follows:
State Violations Consent Order Penalty Terms
Status of Penalty Terms
Failed to make deposits of
gambling receipts within 4
days of game closed
(MN Stat. §349.19 subd 2)
Fine of $1,000 by March 14 State fine paid
Corrective action plan by March 14 Proper documentation
received, reviewed and
accepted
Documentation confirming no part
of penalty fine is paid out of gross
receipts from gambling by April 13
Failed to complete and file
required annual audit for
fiscal years 2008-2010.
(MN Stat. §297E.06, subd.
4, and 349.19, subd. 9)
Must file annual audit for fiscal
years 2008-2010 with Dept. of Rev.
by March 1
Received, reviewed, and
accepted by Dept. of Rev.
3 organization committee members
shall attend a 2 day gambling
manager seminar and pass an open
book test by May 13
* 3 committee members are
registered for the May 9-10
gambling seminar.
* Failure to meet the last term of gambling seminar attendance will result in a license suspension
by the state.
City Code Requirements - Distribution of Proceeds
City Code Section 15-8 requires gambling organizations to contribute 10% of net profits from
each site where lawful gambling is conducted within the city to a fund administered and
regulated by the city. Organizations are exempt if either they expend 100% within St. Louis
Park or conduct gambling on a premises owned and operated by a nonprofit organization.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Organizations must also expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures within the trade
area of St. Louis Park which includes Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth and
Golden Valley. The city does not have authority to specify what lawful purpose expenditures
must be made. That authority rests with the organization and its membership.
City Code Section 15-8 requires organizations to submit monthly state gambling reports.
Although the State Gambling Control Board regulates gambling and reporting, city staff has had
prior difficulties in receiving copies of the Hopkins Raspberry Festival’s gambling reports on a
timely basis. To serve as a reminder to the applicant, staff will be recommending approval with
a condition that all ordinance requirements continue to be met and required gambling reports are
submitted to the City Clerk’s office on a timely basis. Violation of a city ordinance is a
misdemeanor, and the city could prosecute or request the Gambling Control Board to suspend or
revoke the premises permit under Minnesota Rule 7865.
The current licensed gambling establishments in St. Louis Park are as follows:
Community Charities operates at:
• American Legion Post 282, 5605 W. 36th St
• Park Tavern, 3401 Louisiana Ave.
• Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Assoc. operates at Bunny’s Bar & Grill, 5916 Excelsior Blvd.
Hopkins Raspberry Festival operates at McCoy’s Public House, 3801 Grand Way
NEXT STEPS
Council consideration of the Hopkins Raspberry Festival premises permit application to conduct
lawful gambling inside Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill is scheduled for April 2, 2012 City
Council Meeting as a consent item. All items found through the background check with Hopkins
Raspberry Festival as it relates to gambling have been addressed and they have informed us that
they will participate in the May training listed above. Once approved, the resolution will be
forwarded to the State Gambling Control Board who regulates state gambling and is responsible
for issuing the gambling premises permit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
City Code Section 15-9 requires organizations to pay the city a tax of 3% of the gross receipts
less prizes, or an annual amount of $3,000, whichever is less.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR & GRILL
1623 PARK PLACE BLVD.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City
of St. Louis Park must expend 90 percent (90%) of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful
purposes conducted or located within the trade area; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City
of St. Louis Park shall contribute an amount equal to 10 percent (10%) of the organization’s net
profits derived from each individual site to a fund administered and regulated by the City, for
distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized under Minnesota Statute; and
WHEREAS, organizations that either expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose
expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park or conduct the lawful gambling activity on a
premises owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation are exempt from making the 10 percent
contribution to the city; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City
of St. Louis Park shall pay to the city on a prorated monthly basis a local gambling tax in the
annual amount of $3,000 per premises or three percent (3%) of the gross receipts from all lawful
gambling less prizes actually paid out , whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to submit monthly gambling reports to
the City Clerk’s office on a timely basis; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premises permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the State Gambling Control Board may not issue a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed above
meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 2, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 11
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:
2011 Lawful Gambling Ten Percent Contribution Fund Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
In October 2010, the City Gambling Ordinance was amended requiring that organizations
licensed to conduct gambling within the City begin in 2011 to report and contribute 10% of their
net profits from gambling activities to a Ten Percent Contribution Fund to be administered by the
City, unless the organization qualifies under an exemption. In order to be exempt from
contributing to the Ten Percent Contribution Fund, an organization must either expend 100% of
their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park or conduct lawful gambling
activity on a premise owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation.
Each of the organizations has submitted a report to the City Clerk’s Office. For the year ending
December 31, 2011, no contributions to the Ten Percent Contribution Fund were required. All
organizations qualified under one of the two exemptions or had no net profits to report for 2011.
The results for each organization are shown in the following table.
Organization Premises Exemption/Reason
Community Charities American Legion Post 282 Premise owned by nonprofit
Community Charities Park Tavern 100% expended within City
Community Charities Texa Tonka Lanes 100% expended within City
SLP Hockey Boosters Bunny’s Bar & Grill 100% expended within City
Hopkins Raspberry McCoys There were no net profits
Plymouth Lions Club Toby Keith’s There were no net profits
The organizations who expended 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St.
Louis Park provided support to Parktacular, St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Youth
Hockey, Youth Bowling, St. Louis Park Community Band, and Park Nicollet Foundation, among
others.
Staff will provide a similar report to Council again in the first quarter of 2013 after all
organizations have reported their 2012 information.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Lawful Gambling Ten Percent Contribution Fund Report
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Local gambling activities are supporting youth programs, community events, and charitable
organizations within the City.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 12
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:
Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which
the EDA is a party.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA and City Council informed as to the status of
various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA is a party. It is also meant to
apprise city officials of any anticipated actions that may be necessary related to those contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
e2 -“Ellipse on Excelsior II”
(Bader Development)
58 market rate apartments 3/1/2014 0% Construction anticipated late fall
2012 – required to commence by
1/31/13.
Pending Contract Actions:
Purchase & Redevelopment Contract approved 2/6/2012. Bader has filed a request for a Major
Amendment to the PUD.
Status of Lookback:
Former Bikemasters Bldg Renovation
(CKJ Properties, LLC)
18,000 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 100%
leased
Building renovation complete.
Pending Contract Actions:
Building renovation per Development Contract complete. Entirety of CAP loan ($70,000) disbursed.
Status of Lookback:
Former Flame Bldg Renovation
(Hardcoat Inc)
33,600 SF building renovation 12/31/2012 Seeking
tenant for
10,000 SF
Building renovations underway.
Work on building exterior and
landscaping to be completed spring
2012.
Pending Contract Actions:
The 1st amendment to Contract was approved 11/7/2011. Majority of CAP loan has been disbursed.
Status of Lookback:
Wooddale Catered Living
(Greco Development)
115 senior assisted living rentals 12/31/2012 0% leased Construction underway
10,000 SF retail space 12/31/2012 0% leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring contract compliance. Grant disbursements began in fall 2011.
Status of Lookback:
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 3
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 77% leased
Building completed, seeking tenants
Parmida Home-home furnishings,
11,000 SF signed for south end.
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 60% leased Baker & Associates leased
20,122 SF of office space.
120 unit apt. 12/31/2016 0% leased Construction anticipated summer
2012
1.1 million SF Class A office
space
6/1/2021
0% leased
Construction will likely occur in the
next few years once the office mkt
recovers and sufficient tenant
commitments are secured.
Pending Contract Actions:
An Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract and a single TIF Note were approved 5/19/10.
Redeveloper has requested the TIF Note be reissued as two separate Notes; this will require EDA
action.
Status of Lookback:
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed.
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 100%
leased
Building completed.
16,394 SF commercial 3/1/2011 100%
leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Developer exercised the option to lease 3924 Excelsior Blvd on a month to month basis.
Status of Lookback:
Given that Bader has achieved its lease up goals, Ehlers is in the process of conducting the Lookback
for the EDA’s provision of TIF.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 4
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 100%
leased
Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED in September 2011.
Status of Lookback:
Ehlers to conduct Lookback this year.
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 100%
leased Building completed.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Purple parking lot is currently subject to SWLRT planning and the
Gold parking lot is subject to Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange planning.
Status of Lookback:
Ehlers to conduct Lookback this year.
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008
93.2%
leased
70 % leased
Building completed.
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 95% leased Building completed.
“The Adagio” – 100 units 12/31/2013 0% leased Construction to commence by 7/12
Construction to commence by 7/12
“Melody Row” – 22 townhomes 12/31/2013 0% leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Sixth Amendment to Redevelopment Contract approved 2/6/12.
Status of Lookback:
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 5
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 5 sold 5 houses completed
Pending Contract Actions: None
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 85% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract approved 11/21/2011. Annually monitoring Developer
compliance with income requirements.
Status of Lookback:
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF Note paid off February 1, 2010.
Status of Lookback:
Completed; no adjustment in TIF amount.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100%
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED on 9/23/10.
Status of Lookback:
Completed; no adjustment in TIF amount.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 6
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 100%
leased Building completed
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Apts 96.7%
occupied.
Condos
100% sold.
Retail 100%
leased.
Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 4/30/2006 Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007 Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/1/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 7
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Louisiana Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 market rate apartments 6/1/2002 98.5%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriott TownePlace Ste-107
units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring Redeveloper’s adherence to renter income restrictions as specified in Contract.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF district to expire after last TIF payment to developer on 2/1/13.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 8
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract approved 11/7/11. As a result of financial
settlement Contract and HSTI Subdistrict will terminate after last TIF payment either 8/1/12 or 2/1/13.
Study Session Meeting of March 26, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 9
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
March 2012