HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/07/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 9, 2012
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 16 and July 23
2. 6:35 p.m. Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design Guidelines
3. 7:20 p.m. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
4. 7:50 p.m. Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
5. 8:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Eliot School Redevelopment Site
7. National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
8. Oak Hill II Office Building Project Update
9. Outstanding Citizen Award
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: July 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 16 and July 23, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled
for July 16 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 23, 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 a Special Study Session scheduled for July 16 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on July 23, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 16 and July 23, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 16 and July 23, 2012
Special City Council Meeting, July 16, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Pedestrian & Bicycle System Implementation Plan & Policy Review – Public Works (45 minutes)
Continued discussion relating to the proposed CIP and the financial and public involvement
plans for the proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments being considered by the
Council.
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m.
Study Session, July 23, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
(Councilmember Sanger Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Eliot School– Community Development (45 minutes)
The developer of the Eliot School site, Dan Hunt, will attend the meeting to review the
proposed development and obtain Council feedback. The next steps for the project, which
may include a request for financial assistance (TIF), will also be reviewed.
3. City Hall First Floor Reconfiguration – Inspections (45 minutes)
Staff and architect will present the results from several employee meetings on a preferred
first floor City Hall renovation.
4. 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
5. June 2012 Financial Report
6. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June, 2012)
7. Xcel Energy Franchise Agreement
8. CenterPoint Energy Franchise Agreement
End of Meeting: 8:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design Guidelines
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the draft Design Guidelines for the Beltline LRT
station area, and recommendations for next steps. Two representatives from the Committee
(Carl Robertson, Planning Commission and Bob Cunningham, Developer) will be present to
assist in introducing the discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the Beltline Station Area Design Guidelines as developed
through the Advisory Committee?
BACKGROUND:
The Beltline LRT Station Area Design Guideline process was kicked off with an Open House in
November 2011, and an Advisory Committee was formed from that session. Over the past six
months City Staff and consultants have been working with the Committee to create the Design
Guidelines. The Guidelines are now prepared in draft form. The Executive Summary is attached,
and the entire set of Guidelines can be found at http://www.stlouispark.org/develoment-planning-
study.html
Sixteen members served on the Advisory Committee, including representatives of
neighborhoods, businesses, institutions, property owners and City Commissions. The Committee
met five times and discussed planning and land use around the station area. There were several
lively discussions, and the group walked the area to help imagine its future. Much of the
discussion oriented around the idea of this station area being a new focal point.
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES
The Design Guidelines set out a vision for the Beltline area as:
“a transit-oriented hub for jobs, neighborhoods, and recreation. The future Beltline
area will have a unique and well-defined sense of identity with strong connections
to both local and regional destinations. New development will enhance and
reinforce the Beltline area’s role as a regional employment center surrounded by
desirable neighborhoods and a wealth of parks and open spaces.”
Ten principles are set out in the Guidelines, as follows:
1. Create a unique sense of identity for the Beltline area
2. Weave together the distinct Beltline districts
3. Increase street connectivity and mobility
4. Assure superior walking and biking accessibility
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design Guidelines
5. Foster the Beltline area as a growing regional employment center
6. Capture the value of transit
7. Promote transit-oriented development
8. Create a connected network of great public spaces
9. Advocate for a convenient, safe and pleasant transit station center
10. Manage parking effectively
The Guidelines discuss new uses in and around the immediate station area, redevelopment
possibilities, and creating a station area which is comfortable to access and be in because of the
building placement, landscaping, the walk/bike network, lighting, station access and surrounding
streets. Notably, if redevelopment occurs south of the station area in the Beltline Industrial Park,
it is recommended that buildings address the street, to make for a comfortable pedestrian
environment when traveling to the station.
A “Priority Action Plan” is included which recommends the next steps toward achieving the
framework set out in the Guidelines. These steps include much more planning with the
circulation and access in the area.
Circulation and Access Issues
In February, the Council discussed circulation and access in the Beltline LRT station area. SRF
Consulting attended the meeting and explained three concepts that were developed. The
consensus of the Council at that meeting was to direct staff to further explore the concepts for
improving circulation. Specifically, the Council gave direction to: not pursue connecting France
Avenue to the south; determine how to increase capacity and safety on Ottawa without widening
the roadway; continue to pursue a connection of Raleigh at CSAH 25 as a north-south
connection; and pursue connecting Park Glen to Inglewood east of Beltline.
The frontage road on the east side of Highway 100 was discussed. It was noted that the frontage
road was taken out of the plans when MnDOT performed the value engineering and determined a
direct exit onto Minnetonka Boulevard would result in a cleaner movement, be less costly, and
would not result in losing any homes on the east side of the highway. North-south circulation
could be improved with better connections at Raleigh and/or Inglewood on the east side of
Highway 100; these options will be further studied.
Work has continued on these issues, and several options for connections and improvements are
being further pursued, including:
• Connecting Park Glen east of Beltline Blvd to the north
• Connecting Park Glen west of Beltline Blvd to the south
• Determining if Raleigh Avenue can be connected to and/or across CSAH 25
• Determining what the design of Beltline Blvd should be in the future
Options for improvements to CSAH 25, Ottawa and Minnetonka Blvd are also being explored.
A more detailed discussion of circulation and access plans are scheduled for a Study Session in
August.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design Guidelines
NEXT STEPS:
On June 13th, the Beltline LRT Advisory Committee recommended that the Design Guidelines
be accepted by the City Council. The Guidelines would be presented for consideration at a
future regular meeting, consistent with how other Design Guidelines have been incorporated into
city plans in the past. This would include adding a reference and summary about the Guidelines
in the Comprehensive Plan.
For circulation and access options, staff recommends reconvening the Advisory Committee in
the fall to further review circulation and access options.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Consulting services are funded by the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, including promoting
regional transportation issues including SW LRT and pursuing options for additional north/south
connections in the community.
Attachments: Executive Summary of Beltline Design Guidelines
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
SAINT LOUIS PARK30000YEARSMAY 2012BELTLINE AREA FRAMEWORK & DESIGN GUIDELINESCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTAStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 4
PAGE IICITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPLANNING AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS:FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:BELTLINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 123 North Third StreetSuite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401P: (612) 338 0800F: (612) 338 6838website: www.hkgi.comGreg Ingraham Jeff McMenimenJeff Miller30000YEARSStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 5
PAGE IIICITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESCREDITSPHOTOGRAPHS USED THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT ARE COPYRIGHTED BY THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR PRIVATE FIRMS:• Metropolitan Design Center, University of Minnesota• SWA Group• Design Workshop• PBIC Image Library• Project for Public Spaces• Kevin Perry, Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland• Atelier Dreiseitl WaterscapesStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 6
PAGE IVCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSECTION I: FRAMEWORKChapter 1: Beltline Area TodayA. Evolution of Beltline AreaB. Existing CharacterC. Southwest LRT PlanningChapter 2: Vision, Guiding Principles & Development PatternsA. VisionB. Guiding PrinciplesC. Land Uses & Buildings PatternsD. Connectivity & Access PatternsChapter 3: Beltline Character DistrictsA. Beltline Boulevard Transit StreetB. Beltline/Nordic Ware Business ParkC. Bass Lake Preserve Pocket NeighborhoodD. CSAH 25 South WedgeE. Triangle NeighborhoodSECTION II: DESIGN GUIDELINESChapter 4: Public Systems & Spaces Design GuidelinesA. Streets1. Street Network & Design2. Sidewalks3. Walk/Bike Crossings4. On-Street Bikeways5. Bus Facilities6. Traffi c Calming7. Lighting8. Street Plantings9. Street Furnishings10. Community Identity/Public ArtB. Transit Station1. Transit-Oriented Development2. Walk/Bike Accessibility3. Bus/Shuttle Accessibility4. Safety, Security and Comfort5. Community Identity/Public ArtC. Walk/Bike Network1. Local Network2. Cedar Lake Regional TrailD. Open Space, Parks and Plazas1. Parks and Open Spaces2. PlazasE. Public ParkingF. SignageG. Stormwater ManagementH. UtilitiesStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 7
PAGE VCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESChapter 5: Private Development Design GuidelinesA. Site Development 1. Building Placement and Setbacks2. Landscaping3. Stormwater Management4. Walk/Bike ConnectionsB. Buildings1. Uses2. Height and Massing3. Form and Façade4. Roofs5. Exterior Building Materials6. Entries7. Green DesignC. Private Off-Street ParkingD. Service, Delivery & Storage AreasE. LightingF. SignageGLOSSARYStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPAGE 1CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESThe proposed Southwest LRT line connecting Minneapolis to St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie will travel in the existing railroad corridor located on Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) property just south of and largely parallel to CSAH 25/TH 7. Current LRT plans show the future Beltline Transit Station being located just southeast of the intersection of Beltline Boulevard and CSAH 25. The Beltline Station study area is generally defi ned as the area between TH 100 (west), Excelsior Boulevard/CSAH 3 (south), France Ave (east), and Minnetonka Boulevard/CSAH 5 (north). The Beltline Station study area encompasses three defi ned neighborhoods within St. Louis Park: Wolfe Park, Triangle and Minikahda Oaks. The purpose of the Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines is to provide a guide to help shape future changes in the Beltline area. In light of the future addition of a Beltline Transit Station, the Beltline area will continue to evolve with other infrastructure changes, redevelopment and reinvestment. The Framework describes the future vision for the Beltline area and the Design Guidelines provide recommendations for the design of future public and private investment in the Beltline area.The Framework envisions the Beltline area as a transit-oriented community hub for jobs, neighborhoods, and recreation. The future Beltline area will have a unique and well-defi ned sense of identity with strong connections to both local and regional destinations. New development and redevelopment will enhance and reinforce the Beltline area’s role as a regional employment center surrounded by desirable neighborhoods and a wealth of parks and open spaces.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis future vision is supported and reinforced by 10 guiding principles, which are:1. Create a unique sense of identity for the Beltline area2. Weave together the distinct Beltline districts3. Increase street connectivity and mobility4. Assure superior walking and biking accessibility5. Foster the Beltline area as a growing regional employment center6. Capture the value of transit7. Promote transit-oriented development8. Create a connected network of great public spaces9. Advocate for a convenient, safe and pleasant transit station center10. Manage parking eff ectivelyThe Framework also describes the preferred development pattern for the Beltline area, including land uses, development form, connectivity/access, mix of distinct Beltline “character districts”, and Beltline’s overall area identity.The Design Guidelines provide design guidance for future private development and public systems/spaces in the Beltline area. The private development design guidelines address site development, buildings, parking, service/delivery/storage areas, signage, and lighting within the Beltline Area. The public systems/spaces design guidelines address the development of all future above ground, visible elements of the public environment including street and roadway Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPAGE 2CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESdesign, sidewalks and trails, public gathering spaces, public transit and parking facilities, storm water management and utility structures.The Framework and Design Guidelines are advisory and are intended to complement the City’s policies and regulations.Priority Action Plan Recommended initial action step to implement the Framework for the Beltline area are:1. Pursue rezoning of employment-oriented areas to the Business Park (BP) zoning designation and address the land use designation and zoning for mixed-use areas.2. Prepare a detailed bicycle and pedestrian connectivity plan for the Beltline area.3. Begin planning, funding and concept design work for the redesign of CSAH 25 (east of Beltline/Ottawa) from a divided highway to an urban street. Work with Hennepin County to get the project in its work plan as a priority project for planning, design and funding. 4. Use the Beltline Design Guidelines with Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County during the upcoming Southwest LRT Transitional Station Area Action Plan and Preliminary Engineering processes to help shape the Beltline area LRT design.5. Prepare a feasibility analysis of key Beltline area transportation projects - new street connections (e.g. north-south, Park Glen Road, Raleigh, 32nd Street), the Beltline/Ottawa and CSAH 25 intersection, the LRT line/railroad and Beltline/Cedar Lake Trail intersection and the CSAH 25,east of Beltline/Ottawa, urban street design.6. Consider creating a transit station area overlay zoning district for the Beltline transit station area.7. Conduct a detailed redevelopment study of areas adjacent to CSAH 25 in conjunction with the redesign of the roadway.Existing patterns of the Beltline areaStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 10
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 11
FRAMEWORKStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 12
FRAMEWORK - BELTLINE AREA TODAYPAGE 5CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - BELTLINE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINESFigure 1.1: Planned Southwest LRT route and stationsStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Draft Design GuidelinesPage 13
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the proposed revisions to the Outdoor Lighting
standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What are the appropriate and enforceable lighting standards?
BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 2012, the City Council discussed revisions to the lighting ordinance at a Study
Session. Work on the ordinance has continued; the Planning Commission has reviewed the
ordinance in a study session and a public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning
Commission for July 18, 2012. The City Council asked that the proposed ordinance return to a
Study Session for review; attached is the draft ordinance with revisions.
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
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.
To address these items, the City hired HKGi to research issues and practices of regulating
outdoor lighting, and propose revisions to the ordinance.
The proposed ordinance includes:
• Additional definitions including: glare, luminaire, full cutoff, semi-cutoff, fully shielded,
flood light, indirect light and spill light.
• Removing the requirement that a light source or its reflected image cannot be viewed from
off-site. It appears this requirement is nearly impossible to meet.
• Replacing the viewing requirement with new standards for the type of fixtures, shielding of
lights, aiming the standards appropriately and measures for glare control.
• Treating outdoor recreational lighting as a specialized use.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
• Adding revised regulations for recreational facilities, including maximum levels of
illumination, measure methods, fixture shielding and aiming, maximum fixture heights and
higher spillover lighting maximums.
• A new method of measuring recreational lighting to more accurately reflect the direct lighting
impacts on residential properties. Measuring would be by facing a light meter directly at the
light source at 3 feet above grade at the residential property line. This method directs the
light meter at the light source and results in higher readings than our past measurement
methods. As a result, the proposed measurement standards are therefore higher; the proposed
standard for recreational lighting adjacent to residential dwellings would be 1.5 footcandles at
the residential property line. This standard would have to be met when the lights are initially
installed; some reduction in the footcandles is expected to occur over time resulting in lower
actual lighting over the life of the lights.
The proposed revisions to the ordinance require more attention and require more information prior to
the initial installation of the lights, providing a better understanding of the impacts of outdoor
lighting.
NEXT STEPS:
A public hearing before the Planning Commission has been set for July 18th. The ordinance is
tentatively scheduled for a first reading at a City Council meeting in August.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The consulting fees will be paid from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Summary Memo on Outdoor Lighting
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
July 9, 2012
1
Sec. 36-363. Outdoor lighting.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to minimize the adverse effect of light and glare on operators
of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and on residential and other land uses in the vicinity of a light source in
order to promote traffic safety and to prevent the nuisances associated with the intrusion of spill light
and glare.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all outdoor lighting, except lighting for signs
which are covered under section 36-362, and for street lighting within public rights-of-way.
(c) General provisions.
(1) Lighting plan. Submittal of a lighting plan shall be required to ensure compliance with the
purpose of this section for all new development, redevelopment, and additions other than
single-family and two-family dwelling units. The city may also require a lighting plan for any
proposed new light source. This lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A site plan showing locations of buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all proposed
outdoor lighting fixtures;
b. Proposed mounting height of each outdoor lighting fixture;
c. Descriptions of each proposed outdoor lighting fixture including but not limited to
manufacturers catalog specifications sheets, photometric data, IESNA “cutoff” fixture
designation, glare control package, type of lamp (e.g. high pressure sodium, metal halide,
mercury vapor, fluorescent induction), lamp color temperature, and on/off control devices.
d. An illuminance grid (point-by-point) plot of footcandles overlaid on the site plan, plotted out
to 0.0 footcandles, indicating the location and aiming of outdoor lighting fixtures in
compliance with the regulations of this section.
(2) Maximum illuminance levels. Outdoor lighting shall not exceed the maximum maintained
illuminance levels as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA).
(3) Measurement. Post-installation lighting levels shall be measured after dark at the property line
of the adjacent property by facing a light meter directly at the light source at 3 feet above grade.
(4) Spill light and glare. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and arranged to limit spill light and glare
on adjacent properties. Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed five-tenths (0.5) footcandle
when the source of light abuts any residential property or one (1.0) footcandles when the
source of light abuts any commercial or industrial property.
(5) Hours of operation. The city may limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting equipment if
the city believes it necessary to reduce the impact of light on the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) Prohibited lighting. No flickering or flashing lights shall be permitted.
(7) Luminaire design.
a. For the lighting of predominantly horizontal surfaces, luminaires shall be aimed straight
down and shall meet full cutoff criteria unless ornamental light fixtures are installed in the
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 3
Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
July 9, 2012
2
manner provided in a site and building plan approved by the city. Ornamental fixtures may
be approved when the developer can demonstrate that undesirable off-site impacts
stemming from direct or reflected views of the light source are eliminated by the fixture
design or location of the lighting fixture.
b. For the lighting of predominantly non-horizontal surfaces, such as building facades,
landscaping, fountains, displays and statuary, luminaires shall be located, aimed and
shielded so as to not project their beam onto abutting properties, past the object being
illuminated, skyward or onto a public roadway. The lighting shall be fitted with such devices
as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts or visors to minimize spill light and glare
impacts.
(8) Maximum mounting height. Light poles or standards for exterior lighting shall not exceed a
height of 45 feet, except that poles or standards on the top level of parking structures shall not
exceed 25 feet.
(d) Recreational lighting provisions.
Because of its unique requirements for nighttime visibility of recreational activities and limited
days/hours of operation, outdoor recreational facility lighting is exempt from the outdoor lighting
standards of section (c) above. An outdoor recreational facility that has illuminated playing fields, courts
or performance spaces shall be subject to the following standards:
(1) Luminaire design. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be full cutoff design or
directionally shielded. Lighting fixtures shall also be aimed to ensure that their beams fall within
the primary playing area of the fields/courts/tracks or primary performance space and
immediate surroundings so that spill light and glare on adjacent properties are minimized.
(2) Glare control. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be of a manufacturer and type that
offers a glare control package and shall be fitted with the manufacturer’s glare control package.
(3) Maximum illuminance levels. All outdoor recreational lighting installations shall be designed to
achieve no greater than the minimal illuminance levels for the proposed recreational activity as
recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).
(4) Maximum spill light levels. Spill light shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible given the
unique illumination constraints of the outdoor recreational facility. Since outdoor recreational
facilities require much higher lighting levels than other outdoor lighting uses and are in
operation for limited periods of time, the maximum spill light level allowed is also higher. When
an outdoor recreational facility abuts a residential dwelling unit, it shall be designed so that the
illumination at the residential property boundary line that is attributable to the recreational
lighting does not exceed 1.5 vertical footcandles.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 4
Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
July 9, 2012
3
(5) Maximum mounting height. The mounting height of outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall
not exceed a maximum height of eighty (80) feet. The City Council may approve additional
height if it is shown as necessary to reduce spill and glare and has no additional adverse impacts.
(6) Hours of operation. The use of outdoor recreational lighting shall not be permitted between the
hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The main lighting shall be turned off no later than one hour
after an event ends. Where feasible, a low level lighting system shall be installed to be used for
patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime maintenance and other closing activities.
(7) Visual impact plan. To assist the City in determining whether the potential impacts of proposed
outdoor recreational lighting have been suitably managed, applications for illuminating outdoor
recreational facilities shall be accompanied not only with the information required under section
(c) above but also by a visual impact plan that contains the following:
a. Plan views containing a layout of the outdoor recreational facility, showing light pole
locations, and showing the location of abutting residential properties and structures.
b. Elevations containing pole and luminaire mounting heights, horizontal and vertical aiming
angles and luminaire arrays for each pole location.
c. Elevations containing illuminance plots at the boundary of the adjacent property, taken at a
height of three (3) feet.
d. Proposed frequency of use of the outdoor recreational facility during hours of darkness on a
month-by-month basis and proposed time when the recreational lighting will be switched off.
e. A narrative describing the measures proposed to achieve minimum off-site disturbance.
Definitions:
Cutoff or Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner that no more
than 2.5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more than 10
percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Direct Light – Light emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser, or through
the refractor or other diffuser lens, of a luminaire.
Footcandle – The basic unit of illuminance or the amount of light falling on a surface. One footcandle is
approximately equal to the illuminance produced by a light source of one candle in intensity, measured
on a surface at a distance of one foot from the light source. Footcandles can be measured both
horizontally and vertically by a footcandle or light meter.
Full Cutoff or Fully Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner that no
light occurs above the horizontal plane and no more than 10 percent of its light occurs above 80
degrees.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 5
Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
July 9, 2012
4
Glare – The sensation produced directly by a light source or indirectly from reflective surfaces within the
visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are adapted, which can cause
annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. The magnitude of glare depends on
such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source, and on the brightness level to which the eyes
are adapted.
Illuminance – The amount of light falling on any point of a surface, typically measured in footcandles (or
lux in the metric system).
Indirect Light – Direct light that has been reflected or scattered off of other surfaces.
Lamp – The component of the luminaire that actually produces the light, more commonly known as a
bulb.
Light Spill – Light that falls beyond the boundaries of the property on which the lighting installation is
located and because of quantitative, directional or spectral content causes annoyance, discomfort, or
loss in visual performance and visibility.
Lumen – A unit used to measure the actual amount of light that is produced by a light source. The lumen
quantifies the amount of light energy produced by a lamp at the lamp, not by the energy input, which is
indicated by the wattage. For example, a 75-watt incandescent lamp can produce 1,000 lumens while a
70-watt high-pressure sodium lamp can produce 6,000 lumens.
Luminaire or Fixture – The complete lighting assembly or fixture (including but not limited to the lamps,
housing, ballasts, photocells, reflectors, lenses, shields, visors, louvers) but not the support assembly
(poles or mounting brackets).
Mounting Height – The vertical distance as measured from the ground directly below the centerline of
the luminaire to the lowest light-emitting part of the luminaire.
Ornamental Lighting – Lighting that is installed mainly or entirely for its decorative effect rather than as
an aid to visibility.
Semi Cutoff or Partially Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner
that no more than 5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more
than 20 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Shielded – A luminaire from which no direct glare is visible at normal viewing angles by virtue of its
being properly located, aimed, oriented, and properly fitted with spill and glare control devices, such as
shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts, inserts, visors and reflectors.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 6
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Creating Places that Enrich People’s Lives
Page 1 of 5
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 July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 7
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 July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 8
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 July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 9
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 July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 10
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 July 9, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Page 11
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion will be to update the Council on recent project development
activities and to present a schedule of upcoming project steps and activities.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff is interested in questions, comments, or concerns Council may have regarding:
1. Does Council have any questions regarding the final geometric layout, proposed noise
walls, storm water ponding areas, or possible right of way vacation?
2. Public art could be developed for bridges, noise walls, along trails, or trail head areas;
would Council like staff to pursue public art in this project and to what extent?
3. Does Council have any questions regarding the overall project schedule?
4. Does Council have any questions regarding the Municipal Consent process, noise wall
determination process, or the proposed schedule?
BACKGROUND:
History - At the September 8, 2008 Study Session Council was provided information and an
update regarding staff’s evaluation and investigation into improving north-south transportation
options as identified in the Vision St. Louis Park process. A copy of the SEH Technical
Memorandum, St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study – Forecasting Methodology – Draft
dated August 11, 2008 was also provided to the Council then.
At the January 24, 2011 Study Session, City and Mn/DOT staff explained Concepts B and C and
answered questions regarding the project. Council expressed an interest in an earlier version of
Concept C that included a two way frontage road on the east side of Highway 100 south of
Minnetonka Boulevard, and retention of the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound
Highway 100. Additional issues were identified such as determining the impact on Toledo
Avenue homes, minimizing cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods, retaining full access
between Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100, the potential need for noise walls, and
maintaining the existing trail along the east side of the highway. Other issues discussed included
mitigating congestion on Highway 100 to reduce local traffic, the future of Utica Avenue north
of Minnetonka Boulevard, the design of the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge to include
accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles, as well as other possible property impacts and
safety considerations.
At the February 7, 2011 Study Session, staff informed Council that Mn/DOT proposed closing
the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 100 for Concepts B, C, and D.
Council expressed significant concern over the proposed closure of the W. 27th Street entrance
ramp and requested staff to evaluate impacts and possible mitigation associated with that closure.
Council also expressed a desire to discuss north - south transportation needs in the City and how
they related to the proposed Highway 100 project. At the March 7, 2011 Study Session staff
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
presented impacts (traffic projections or shifts and right of way implications) for the various W.
27th Street entrance ramp options. Council then directed staff to conduct a meeting(s) to obtain
area property owner input on the ramp options, traffic impacts, access needs, and possible street
changes near the W. 27th Street ramp. Council was presented a report providing information
regarding changes in Mn/DOT’s noisewall installation practice and how that new policy was
expected to relate to the Highway 100 project.
At the June 27th Study Session, staff updated Council on results of the public involvement
process and input that had been received regarding the W. 27th Street entrance ramp options
under consideration. Council conveyed a preference to extending the ramp south to Minnetonka
Boulevard as a separate southbound ramp merging with Highway 100 exit traffic on the east side
of the Holiday Station. Council directed staff to convey their ramp preference to area residents
and respond to comments, if any. In addition, Council informed staff they desired to solicit
residents to sit on Mn/DOT’s proposed Noise Advisory Committee (NAC).
Area residents were notified of this ramp preference during July and no comments were
received. During August staff informed Mn/DOT that Council was interested in Mn/DOT
pursuing Concept C with enhancements (a two way frontage road on the east side of Highway
100 south of Minnetonka Boulevard and a one way southbound frontage road on the west side of
Highway 100 south of Minnetonka Boulevard) and ramp Option D at the W. 27th Street entrance
ramp.
From September, 2011 through November, 2011, Mn/DOT conducted a Value Engineering (VE)
Study and performed a traffic modeling and operational analysis for this project. As a result of
City comments and these engineering activities, Mn/DOT developed a proposed geometric
layout for the project. This was all presented to Council at a Study Session on December 12,
2011. 1. Added an exit ramp from northbound Highway 100 to Minnetonka Boulevard
2. Eliminated the northbound connection on the east side of Highway 100 between Highway 7
/ Highway 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard (no longer needed due to the added exit ramp to
Minnetonka Boulevard)
3. Added a southbound connection on the west side of Highway 100 between Minnetonka
Boulevard and Highway 7
4. Revised the exit and entrance ramps on the west side of Highway 100 at the Highway 7
interchange. Based on a preliminary evaluation, the revised ramp intersection on the west
side of the bridge may not need to be signalized.
5. Retained the W. 27th Street entrance ramp as it exists except it is relocated north about
200’ (to immediately south of the existing overhead pedestrian bridge)
Mn/DOT conducted a traffic modeling and operational analysis on this new layout and has
concluded that the proposed layout will operate acceptably. Upon further comments and review,
the layout was subsequently tweaked with minor adjustments (dated February 9). Staff verified
in March of 2012 (with the help of a consultant) that the layout as designed will operate
acceptably. Mn/DOT also completed a detailed drainage analysis and preliminary engineering
with regards to addressing storm water, utilities, and other environmental impacts, including
noise. Staff solicited further feedback from internal stakeholders such as police and fire, and
Hennepin County during this time.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Public “subgroup” informational meetings were conducted on April 24 and May 1 to solicit
feedback from residents and property owners located more immediately adjacent to Highway
100. The meetings essentially gathered input with regards to proposed local street changes and
access issues. In addition, residents were provided general information with regards to the noise
wall determination process.
At the May 7, 2012 Study Session, Council was provided an update with regards to the project
process and refinement of the layout, including the determination of an appropriate cross-section
for the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge. This update was provided to Council prior to the May 15
public open house meeting where additional comments were received. Comments received
indicate support for the proposed final layout, no real preference for ped and bike
accommodations on the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge, and some questions over noise wall and
storm water pond locations. Since that date, Mn/DOT has been reviewing the final layout
internally and tweaking and refining it, based on the comments received. The most current
available layout version is dated July 2, 2012 and is attached as Exhibit A. Attendance lists and
comments received from the public meetings will be available for Council on July 9.
Mn/DOT’s most recent layout includes additional detail regarding the Minnetonka Boulevard
Bridge. Over the past couple of months, staffs from Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and the City
have discussed several different bridge cross sections for addressing all modes of transportation
(vehicles, bicycles, and peds). Alternative cross sections are illustrated under Exhibit A (Sheets
A3 and A4). Based on staff and stakeholder input, Alternative B2 has been suggested as a
preferred option to Mn/DOT, and this is reflected in the layout.
Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) meetings have been held since the end of last year and the
fourth and final meeting was held on June 19, 2012. As previously reported, Mn/DOT created
the NAC to comply with the “new” federal Noise Analysis process required for this project. The
intent of the NAC has been to provide two-way communication between the community and the
project team, educate residents about the noise evaluation process, review the noise analysis
methodology and results, and provide feedback to the City Council as well as communicate
project information to neighborhood residents. As a result of these meetings and the information
conveyed by committee members to their neighbors, many residents already have a good deal of
knowledge and background information regarding this matter. Noise wall locations as most
recently proposed by Mn/DOT are shown in the attached Exhibit C.
Summary and Next Steps
Municipal Consent
Mn/DOT has indicated a desire to formally request Municipal Consent later this month (July). A
brief outline of the main elements of the Municipal Consent process is provided below. A full
explanation of the process is provided per the attached Exhibit B:
Background:
Municipal approval is required for any trunk highway project that results in any of the following
within a municipality:
1. Alteration of access
2. An increase or reduction in traffic capacity. Changing capacity essentially means adding or
reducing the number of through lanes
3. A requirement for the acquisition of permanent right of way
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Municipal consent is not required (regardless of impacts to access, capacity, or right of way) for
projects needed for any of the following:
1. To regulate traffic
2. To install traffic control devices
3. To provide other safety measures (The term “other safety measures” refers to traffic safety
measures. For example, the addition of a turn lane is a traffic safety measure, but the
replacement of a structurally-deficient or fracture-critical bridge is not).
Procedure:
Mn/DOT must submit to the City a final layout with a letter requesting approval. The letter must
include a good faith cost estimate of the City’s share of the project’s cost and the following:
1. Project purpose
2. Route location
3. Short description of the proposed design
4. Any additional supporting data
The City must schedule and hold a public hearing within 60 days of Mn/DOT’s submittal. The
City must schedule the hearing within 15 days of receiving Mn/DOT’s request for approval and
must also give 30 days public notice. The City must then pass a resolution approving or
disapproving within 90 days of the public hearing. After 90 days from the date of the public
hearing, if the City has not passed a resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed
approved.
If the City disapproves, Mn/DOT must decide whether to:
1. Meet the City’s condition(s), assuming the City approves with conditions. Mn/DOT must
also write the City a letter indicating this and attach a revised layout with the changes.
2. Go to an appeal process
3. Stop the project or scale back the project in a manner that municipal consent is no longer
required.
If in the final plan Mn/DOT alters access, capacity, or Right of Way, Mn/DOT must re-submit
the changed portion of the plan for the City’s approval.
At this time, Mn/Dot has indicated they will be submitting a formal request for Municipal
Consent sometime by the end of July.
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Noise Walls
Concurrent with the Municipal Consent process, Mn/DOT will be conducting parallel processes
with approval of the Environmental Assessment and whether or not to remove noise walls from
the project design plans. At this time, Mn/DOT intends to release the EA for public comment in
early September of this year and conduct a public hearing later that month. With regards to noise
walls, residents and property owners will have a say (vote) as to whether noise walls will be
removed from the project. Mn/DOT intends to schedule sub-group informational meetings
sometime for August or September to further explain this process and the voting procedure. The
proposed barrier locations are shown in the attached Exhibit C.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Public Art
Staff would like to begin preliminary discussions with Council at this time to determine if there
is any desire to incorporate public art with the project and if so, what Council would perhaps like
to include.
In summary, the following project steps and anticipated dates are as follows:
• Municipal Consent Approval Process July-October, 2012
• Environmental Assessment (EA) Release September 2012
• Noise Wall Determination Process July – October, 2012
• Complete EA Process Early 2013
• Mn/DOT Develops Construction Plans Fall 2012 - Spring 2014
and Specifications
• Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014
• Mn/DOT Opens Bids and Awards Contract May 2014
• Construction 2014 thru 2015
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Mn/DOT has not yet provided a cost participation breakdown for the project. At this time, we
expect the City’s share of the cost to be minimal, based on a preliminary cost share exhibit
provided by Mn/DOT (Exhibit D). Actual numbers will be provided by Mn/DOT when
Municipal Consent is formally requested within the next few weeks.
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:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
Attachments: Exhibit A – Current Layout – 2 pages (Jul y 2, 2012)
Exhibit B – Municipal Consent Process
Exhibit C – Proposed Noise Wall Locations
Exhibit D – Cost Share Exhibit
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, Mn/DOT
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 6
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No.4 )
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 7
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 8
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 9
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 10
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 11
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 12
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 13
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 14
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 15
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 16
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 17
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 18
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 19
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 20
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 21
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 22
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
Eliot School Redevelopment Site
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This is an informational item only. The development proposal for the Eliot School site will be
on a future City Council study session meeting agenda for discussion following the developer’s
meeting with the Eliot neighborhood.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Staff report is to provide the City Council with a preview of the development
proposal for the Eliot School site. Attached is a preliminary site plan and illustrative drawing that
will be presented for discussion at a neighborhood meeting at 6:00 PM on July 18th at City Hall.
After the neighborhood meeting, it is anticipated that the developer will meet with the City
Council in a study session to present and discuss the proposal. If the City Council is comfortable
with the proposed development, the developer intends to apply for the necessary zoning
approvals and tax-increment financing assistance following the study session.
Earlier this year, developer Dan Hunt reached an agreement with the St. Louis Park School
Board to purchase the Eliot School site, contingent on City approvals to allow his proposed
development to move forward. Proposed are two apartment buildings and two new single family
lots for the 4.2 acre site.
The two apartment buildings will cover much of the site. Each three-story building would have a
total of 72 units, for total of 144 apartment units. Although the proposed buildings are three
stories, the architects reduced the building height to two stories in areas nearest to existing
homes. The proposed site plan includes areas for stormwater management, outdoor recreation,
and landscaping. Parking for residents would be provided below the buildings, with guest
parking between the two buildings.
The site plan was designed to allow for additional setback area to the north of the site. There is
adequate space to the north of the apartments for the development of two new single family lots.
As currently proposed, one lot faces Hampshire and one lot faces Idaho. Together with the
apartment buildings, a total of 146 new residential units are proposed for the site.
Site plan development is still in the early stages. The developer has provided a concept site plan
and a perspective drawing of the proposed buildings, attached.
Design guidelines for the Eliot School site were completed in 2010. The proposed development
largely meets the ten site reuse principles of the design guidelines, including a mix of residential
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site
development types, a transition of building heights across the site, and opportunities for green
open space and connectivity. The site reuse principles from the design guidelines are included as
an attachment.
The developer plans to hold a neighborhood meeting on July 18th. The meeting will be held at
6:00 PM at City Hall. Following the neighborhood meeting and the meeting with the City
Council, the developer will make site plan and other design revisions as needed prior to
submitting any official applications for project approvals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is anticipated that the developer will be seeking tax-increment financing assistance (TIF). The
potential request will be discussed at a future City Council study session.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed development for the Eliot School site fits within the Strategic Direction adopted by
the Council in 2007 to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: Proposed Site Plan and Perspective Drawing
Excerpt, Eliot School Design Guidelines
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD1 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkSITE PLAN144 APARTMENT UNITS190 PARKING STALLS BELOW20 PARKING STALLS AT CGRADE210 STALLS TOTAL (1.46/UNIT)200 BEDROOMS (88 1BR & 56 2BR UNITSHAMPSHIRE AVE.VECED
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
O
A
DIDAHO AVE.78’-0”23’-0”
30’-0”
22’+20STALLS23’-0”
44’-0”60’-0”35’-0”50’-0”30’-0”NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTNEW SINGLE FAMILY LOT222’+22’+5353333333333335333333333333555555555555555533333 THREE STORIES TWO STORIES BALCONIES Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 3
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD2 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkAREA PLANHAMPSHIRE AVE.CEDAR LAKE ROADIDAHO AVE.78’-0”23’-0”30’-0”22’+20STALLS23’-0”44’-0”60’-0”35’-0”50’-0”30’-0”NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTNEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 4
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD3 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkSOUTH WEST AERIAL PERSPECTIVEStudy Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment SitePage 5
Eliot Community Center
Site Reuse Study
Design Guidelines
December 15, 2010
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 6
Page 7Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
The Site Reuse Principles embody the community’s general desires and intentions for appropriate future
reuses of the Eliot Community Center site. These ten principles provide the community’s big picture view
and a means for guiding and evaluating future proposals for reusing this site. These general principles are
supported by the detailed design guidelines in Section 4.
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses
Future land uses should be a mix of at least two medium density residential uses that contribute to the
community’s long-term goal of being a livable community with a variety of lifecycle housing options and
leverage the site’s location and proximity to transit, parks, trails, bike routes, and commercial areas
2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North
Concentrate taller and higher density buildings on southern half of site toward Cedar Lake Road and locate
lower buildings on the northern half of the site
3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character
Building form, scale, placement and massing should be sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding homes
4. Neighborhood Open Space
Reuse of the site should incorporate open space that is located along a public street, visible to the public,
and ideally allows public access
5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway
Reflect the site’s role as a long-time community landmark and Eliot neighborhood gateway on Cedar Lake
Road by preserving the mature trees and enhancing the triangular open space area fronting on Cedar Lake
Road
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
Support neighborhood connectivity by incorporating an east-west pedestrian connection through the site
3. Site Reuse Principles
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 7
Page 8 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
Reuses of the site should achieve a reasonable financial return for the School District balanced with the
appropriate fit with the City’s goals and these reuse principles
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
Owner occupied housing is preferred, however, assisted living services could be an accessory use to an
owner-occupied senior housing development
9. School Building Reuse
There is neither strong community preference nor opposition to reusing the existing school building;
however, future developers are encouraged to evaluate the condition of the building to determine the
possibilities of reuse for residential units
10. Interim Property Maintenance
It is important for the property owner to keep the site and building properly maintained and in safe condition
prior to and during redevelopment construction
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Site Page 8
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of findings of the due diligence efforts regarding
Utility Service Partners (USP) along with next steps needed to participate in the National League
of Cities endorsed service line warranty program.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to pursue the NLC Service Line Warranty Program?
BACKGROUND:
History
On May 14, staff presented Council with information on the National League of Cities (NLC)
Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP), which is a
home protection solution for residents arranged by NLC Enterprise Programs (see Exhibit 1 -
Study Session report of May 14, 2012). The program appeared acceptable to Council and
viewed as a tool that could meet the needs of some residents. However, Council expressed some
concern over the viability of USP since this is a relatively new program and company. Before
approving participation in this program, Council requested staff perform due diligence in
evaluating USP as a reputable viable program vendor.
Due Diligence Effort
City Attorney Tom Scott spoke with Cynthia Cusick at the National League of Cities. Attached
is her favorable report on the contractor and the workings of the program to date (see Exhibit 2 -
NLC Letter of June 15, 2012). Tom also reviewed the homeowner contract with the service
warranty company, Utility Services Partners. The contract to be used in Minnesota has been
modified to eliminate language which on its face excluded from coverage any property owner
who has homeowners insurance, even though homeowners insurance would not cover the cost
of a water or sewer line in need of repair do to normal wear and tear. While the company
attorney emphasized that it would never interpret this language in that fashion, they did
eventually agree to remove it.
What cooperation is needed from the City of St. Louis Park?
St. Louis Park is required to enter into a marketing services agreement with USP which creates a
co-branded marketing program for USP in the city. Staff has attached the proposed marketing
agreement for informational purposes (see Exhibit 3 - Proposed Marketing Agreement). The
agreement provides for the use of the city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo, on
marketing materials sent to citizens. By participating in this program, the city is endorsing USP
as the service provider for this warranty program.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
The term of the marketing agreement is for one year and it renews on an annual basis unless one
party provides a 90 day advance written notice of intention not to renew. The City may terminate
the agreement 30 days after giving notice of material breach if the breach is not cured within 30
days.
Summary and Next Steps
In general, this program appears to deal with a commonly heard residential complaint - the high
cost associated with unexpected service line repairs. City contacts have confirmed this is a good
program and USP appears to be a reputable viable vendor.
Based on the earlier staff evaluation and the due diligence results obtained by the City Attorney,
staff feels this is a reliable credible program that could be of benefit to some residents in St.
Louis Park. Staff has developed the following basic steps and schedule should Council wish to
participate in this program:
August 6 Council adopts marketing agreement
Aug - Sept City conducts a public information campaign informing residents of
service line warranty program availability fall of 2012
Sept - Oct USP markets program
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No impact to the city. If Council decides to participate in this program, staff recommends the
city pursue the agreement which offers the warranties at the 10% discount rate to the residents so
they realize the savings associated with this program (no revenues for the city).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Study Session Report of May 14, 2012
Exhibit 2 - NLC Letter of June 15, 2012
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Marketing Agreement
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Exhibit 1 Study Session: May 14, 2012
Item: 6
TITLE:
National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide information on a water and sewer utility service line
warranty program with Council. If Council feels this program is acceptable, staff would
negotiate a specific marketing agreement for future Council adoption.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to pursue the NLC Service Line Warranty Program?
BACKGROUND:
Program Description
The National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility
Service Partners, Inc. (USP), is a home protection solution for residents arranged by NLC
Enterprise Programs. This program appears to provide an affordable home protection solution
which could help residents save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or
leaking water or sewer service lines. Currently, only residential properties with non-shared
(single) service lines are eligible to participate in this program.
Homeowners in participating cities are eligible to purchase low-cost warranties, which provides
for cleaning, repairs, or replacement of broken or leaking water and sewer service lines of up to
$4,000, or more, per occurrence. Typically, service line repairs range in the several thousands of
dollars and can create significant financial hardships for an unprepared homeowner. This
warranty program is designed to transfer the risk of these costly repairs. Approximate
homeowner costs will likely range from $5 to $6 per line per month – specific rates are
determined for each city’s particular situation based on local infrastructure and policies.
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program provides residents a warranty for service line cleaning,
repair, or replacement for monthly fee, with no deductibles or service fees. This work is
performed by licensed, local contractors who are to return customer calls within one hour of a
claim being filed. USP provides a personally staffed 24/7 hotline for residents, 365 days a year.
There is no cost for a city to participate in this program. However, participating cities can elect
to receive a share of the revenues collected from within the city. This program is in the final stage
of being offered to all cities in the 48 contiguous states with completion expected spring of 2012.
Staff has attached four exhibits providing information on this program:
1. Exhibit 1 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
2. Exhibit 2 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Availability
3. Exhibit 3 - Frequently Asked Questions
4. Exhibit 4 - Implementation Process
In addition, the following link provides very good info on the USP website and their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/index.html
Plus the following link is to a video providing information on their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/overview-video/
About Utility Service Partners, Inc.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 3
USP, headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is an independent provider of service line
warranties and water heater rentals in the United States. USP is a portfolio company of
Macquarie Capital, part of Macquarie Group Limited, one of the world’s largest owners and
managers of infrastructure assets and a manager of over $36 billion in infrastructure equity
around the world.
A Late April USP Communication to Staff:
Program momentum seems to be growing (see the attached NLC press release – Exhibit 5)
with large cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Milwaukee, and Plano now participating in the
USP program.
Utility Service Partners enjoys an A+ Better Business Bureau rating with a three year history
of zero complaints. As all, cities and residents alike, are watching their dollars, the NLC
Service Line Warranty Program is an example of a cost-free Public Private Partnership (P3)
program that may be the right solution for a city.
Since introducing the program in November, 2010, over 125 cities in 27 states have adopted
the program. In that time, over 1,200 service lines have been repaired or replaced saving
those residents over $1,000,000 in repair costs that would have otherwise come from their
pockets.
What cooperation is needed from the City of St. Louis Park?
St. Louis Park is required to enter into a marketing services agreement with USP which creates a
co-branded marketing program for USP in the city. Staff has attached a sample marketing
agreement for informational purposes - see Exhibit 6. The agreement provides for the use of the
city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo, on marketing materials sent to citizens. By
participating in this program, the city is endorsing USP as the service provider for this warranty
program.
The term of the marketing agreement is for one year and it renews on an annual basis unless one
party provides a 90 day advance written notice of intention not to renew. City may terminate the
agreement 30 days after giving notice of material breach if breach is not cured within 30 days.
Staff Analysis
Staff has discussed the pros and cons of this program with NLC staff, LMC staff, our city
attorney, and the regional representative for USP. Based on that input, staff has analyzed this
program (see Exhibit 7 – Staff Analysis) to aid Council in discussing participation in this program.
Local Participation:
Buffalo, Mn is currently participating in this program. They began program participation
during the last half of 2011 and state they are pleased with the results to date. They received
quite a few calls for the first several weeks when the program was initially marketed by USP;
resident inquiries have since ceased. Buffalo opted to receive revenues rather than rebate
savings to the residents. They just received their first quarterly revenue check for sewer service
line registrations which amounted to about $1,500.
Columbia Heights, Mn recently approved participation in the program and USP begins their
spring marketing campaign there this month. Columbia Heights approved the program for both
sewer and water service lines. They opted to receive no rebate and passed the savings on to the
participating property owners. The program was approved by the Council on a 4-1 vote. The
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 4
council member who did not vote for it felt this was an optional only type coverage and felt that
the City shouldn't be involved. This item was brought forward by a council member and was
only briefly and lightly discussed before adoption.
Chanhassen, Mn considered this program at a Study Session earlier this year and is still
considering participation in the program. They have the following concerns:
1. the program is so new to Minnesota there is no track record here yet
2. USP use of the city logo on their letter head
Chanhassen staff feels if other Minnesota cities participate in this program with good results,
Chanhassen probably will also.
Summary and Next Steps
In general, this program appears to deal with a commonly heard residential complaint - the high
cost associated with unexpected service line repairs. City contacts have confirmed this is a good
program and we should consider participation in the program.
Based on the analysis provided in Exhibit 7, staff feels this is a reliable credible program that
could be of benefit to some residents in St. Louis Park. Staff has developed the following basic
steps and schedule should Council wish to participate in this program:
Staff negotiates a marketing agreement with USP May
Council adopts marketing agreement June
City conducts a public information campaign informing residents of
service line warranty program availability fall of 2012 June - Sept
USP markets program Sept - Oct
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No impact to the city. If Council decides to participate in this program, staff recommends the
city pursue the agreement which offers the warranties at the 10% discount rate to the residents so
they realize the savings associated with this program (no revenues for the city).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
Exhibit 2 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Availability
Exhibit 3 - Frequently Asked Questions
Exhibit 4 - Implementation Process
Exhibit 5 – NLC Press Release
Exhibit 6 - Sample Marketing Agreement
Exhibit 7 – Staff Analysis
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 5
June 15, 2012
Mr. Thomas M. Scott
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Suite 317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Dear Mr. Scott:
It was a pleasure to talk with you last week about the NLC Service Line Warranty Program and
the interest that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has expressed in the program. As I
mentioned, we are in the process of extending our partnership through 2018 with Utility Service
Partners, Inc. (USP), the administrators of the program, so as you can imagine, we are pleased
with the partnership and experience cities have had with the program.
About the NLC Service Line Warranty Program
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program is an affordable home protection solution that helps
city residents save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or leaking water or
sewer lines. The NLC Service Line Warranty Program provides residents access to a low cost
warranty that will provide repairs without costly deductibles or service fees.
There is no cost to cities that elect to participate in the program, and some cities chose to receive
a share of the revenues collected. Implementation is easy and USP provides and pays for all of
the required services. In addition, USP provides a personally staffed 24/7 repair hotline for
residents, 365 days a year. The repair work is performed by licensed, local plumbers who will
call the customer within one hour of filing a claim.
Program and Company Selection
Many homeowners are unaware that they are responsible for the repair and replacement of
water and sewer lines, until there is a problem. Residents often turn to the city or utility
provider for assistance and are informed that the lines are the responsibility of the
homeowner. NLC understood this challenge, confirmed with member groups the need for a
warranty program for residents and began exploring options.
In 2009, Jim Hunt, councilmember of Clarksburg, West Virginia, and NLC past president,
suggested that NLC explore the service line warranty program offered by the West Virginia
Municipal League through USP that had been well received by member cities and city residents.
Lisa Dooley, executive director, West Virginia Municipal League, shared the organization’s
satisfaction with the program, especially the ease of implementation, program affordability and
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 6
quality customer service. In exploring the viability of the program on a national basis, NLC
learned that USP had a similar sponsorship agreement with the Oklahoma Municipal League.
Simultaneous to NLC’s exploration process, the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) selected USP as the provider of a service line warranty program in the Dallas/Fort
Worth area, which includes 230 cities with a population of 6.5 million. This selection process
included a competitive bid process. NLC spoke with Mike Eastland, NCTCOG’s Executive
Director to confirm the evaluation process, which was comprised of several member cities and
NCTCOG staff, and later reviewed the interlocal agreement that allows local governments to
access the master contract held by NCTCOG. After USP was unanimously selected by the
Evaluation Committee, we learned that four (4) service providers, including USP participated in
the process.
Several factors lead NLC to partner with USP to market and promote the NLC Service Line
Warranty Program, including the partner’s financial strength and experience in the marketplace.
NLC staff reviewed the most recent financial audit, which had an unqualified opinion by the
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. A review of USP’s business plan provided
information about their business structure and relationship with the parent company; the
proposed implementation strategy; and a review of the regulatory environment that prompts
USP’s entry into the market.
Additionally, USP had experience working with municipalities, including smaller municipalities
that have populations of fewer than 50,000. It also had experience working with membership
associations, like NLC and state leagues, and a willingness to share revenues with program
participants.
Experience to Date
As I mentioned on our call, we are in the process of reaffirming our partnership with USP and
extending that partnership through 2018. USP has rolled to program out to 44 of the 48
continental/contiguous states and is working hard to have coverage in all 48 by the end of 2012.
In fact, the company has As was the case prior to our partnership, USP has an exceptionally low
denial rate and an A+ Better Business Bureau rating with zero complaints over the three year
reporting period. There are more than 125 cities participating in the program.
I hope you will find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
additional questions.
Sincerely,
Cynthia J. Shultz Cusick
Director, Office of Corporate Programs
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 7
February 3, 2012
The Honorable Jeffrey Jacobs
Mayor
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Marketing Agreement with Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. d/b/a
Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”)
Dear Mayor Jacobs:
We have discussed entering into a marketing agreement between the City of St. Louis
Park (the “City”) and SLWA.
SLWA provides affordable utility service line warranties to consumers. It is SLWA’s
understanding that, in consideration of SLWA offering its external sewer and external water line
warranties (the “Warranties”) at a 10% discount from its standard rates to the Residents (as
defined below) the City has agreed to cooperate with SLWA in marketing SLWA’s services to
City’s residents and homeowners (the “Residents”) as described below:
1. City hereby grants to SLWA a non-exclusive license to use City’s name and logos on
letterhead and marketing materials to be sent to the Residents from time to time, and to be used
in advertising, all at SLWA’s sole cost and expense and subject to City’s prior review and
approval, which will not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld.
2. As consideration for such license, SLWA shall offer the Warranties to the Residents at a
rate that is 10% less than its standard rate for Warranties offered elsewhere.
3. The term of this marketing agreement will be for one year from the date of the execution
of the acknowledgement below and this agreement will then renew on an annual basis unless one
of the parties gives the other advance written notice of at least 90 days that it does not intend to
renew this marketing agreement. City may terminate this marketing agreement 30 days after
giving notice to SLWA that SLWA is in material breach of this agreement if such breach is not
cured during such 30-day period. SLWA will be permitted to complete any marketing initiative
initiated or planned prior to the effective date of any termination of this marketing agreement
after which time, neither party will have any further obligations to the other and the license
described in this letter will terminate.
4. SLWA shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City, its elected officials, appointed
officials, and employees from and against any loss, claim, liability, damage, or expense that any
of them may suffer, sustain or become subject to in connection with any third party claim (each a
“Claim”) resulting from the negligence or willfulness of SLWA in connection with, arising out
of or by reason of this marketing agreement, provided that the applicable indemnitee notifies
SLWA of any such Claim within a time that does not prejudice the ability of SLWA to defend
against such Claim. Any indemnitee hereunder may participate in its, his, or her own defense,
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 8
but will be responsible for all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection
with such participation in such defense.
If City agrees that the foregoing fully and accurately describes the agreement between
City and SLWA, please arrange to have a duly authorized representative of City execute and date
the acknowledgement below in each of the duplicate original versions of this letter and return
one to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
If you have any questions or wish to further discuss this marketing agreement, please do
not hesitate to contact Oscar Arras via email at OArras@utilitysp.net or by phone at (214) 632-
6947.
Very truly yours,
Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc.
By: ________________________________
Print Name: _ Philip E. Riley, Jr. _________
Title: President & CEO________________
By: ________________________________
Print Name: __ Brad H. Carmichael ________
Title: ___Vice President_________________
Acknowledged and Agreed:
City hereby acknowledges and agrees that the foregoing letter fairly and accurately
describes the agreement between City and SLWA as of the date of this acknowledgement.
City of St. Louis Park, MN:
By: __________________________________ Date: ________________________
Print Name: ____________________________
Title: _________________________________
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 7)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 9
Meeting Date: July 9, 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:
Oak Hill II Office Building Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this staff report is to update the EDA on the status of Anderson-KM Builders’
proposed Oak Hill II office building. No action is needed at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This is a Redevelopment project update. Is there any other information Council would like on
this project?
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year the EDA approved the creation of an Economic Development Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) District to facilitate the construction of the Oak Hill II office building by
Anderson-KM Builders. The proposed office site is located at 3340 Republic Avenue. The
proposed office building would be 2 stories with approximately 21,450 SF. Anderson-KM
Builders is currently operating from Anderson Builder's location on Park Glen Rd in St. Louis
Park as well as KM Building's offices in Minneapolis. The recently consolidated firm planned to
build the new facility in order to consolidate its operations within a single location. Anderson-
KM Builders plans to occupy approximately half the new building (6,001 SF of office and 4,715
SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF on upper floor would be built out as office space and
leased to one or more tenants.
Anderson-KM Builders had hoped to commence construction on the building this spring
however its lender is requiring that a tenant be signed for at least a portion of the upper floor
space as a condition for financing approval. Anderson and its real estate broker have been
actively seeking such a tenant but it has been difficult to obtain a lease commitment on a
speculative building especially with a surplus of office space available in the market. Having
said that, Anderson is currently in negotiation with such a tenant for the entire upper floor. This
prospective tenant however would not require the space until later next year or perhaps the
spring of 2014.
The above tenant’s schedule actually works to Anderson-KM Builders’ advantage. This is
because the legislative authority under which the EDA created the Oak Hill II TIF District (that
being the 2010 Jobs Bill) was not extended during the last legislative session. The extension was
included in the Tax Bill (along with a plethora of special TIF-related requests around the state)
which was ultimately vetoed. It is hoped that this extension could be obtained in a technical tax
bill early in the next legislative session as there is support for much of what would be included in
the bill on both sides of the political aisle as well as from the Governor. Such an extension could
be structured to be retroactive so as to include any projects (like Oak Hill II) that were approved
but did not commence during 2012. If the extension is not approved, then the EDA’s ability to
provide tax increment to Anderson’s project through the above TIF District will have lapsed.
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No.8) Page 2
Subject: Oak Hill II Office Building Project Update
Incidentally, it was the same Jobs Bill that provided cities the temporary authority to stimulate
construction through the use of pooled tax increment. As a result of this authorization, the EDA
created its Construction Assistance Program (CAP) to spur the immediate construction,
expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or mixed use buildings in the city.
This legislative authorization was also to be extended under the recent Tax Bill. However since
the Tax Bill was vetoed, the EDA’s ability to use pooled tax increment as provided under the
Jobs Bill has been substantially restricted. Cities like St. Louis Park may wish to seek an
extension for this authority in the next legislative session as well.
Project Schedule
Assuming the necessary legislative extension is approved next year, and the required lease
commitment is obtained, staff and Anderson-KM Builders would finalize the proposed
Redevelopment Contract. Such an agreement, which specifies the project to be constructed and
the tax increment to be provided would be reviewed in study session and, upon mutual
acceptance, would be presented to the EDA for formal approval. Anderson then hopes it could
commence construction on the proposed office building sometime next year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA maintain its
willingness to provide tax increment assistance to Anderson-KM Builders so as to enable the
construction of a two story office building at 3340 Republic Avenue.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and
promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachements: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: July 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Special Meeting Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other:
TITLE:
Outstanding Citizen Award
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed until July 16, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve and recognize the three Outstanding Citizen Award
Winners on July 16, 2012?
BACKGROUND:
On October 3, 2011 City Council Approved the Outstanding Citizen Award with the following
direction:
• The individual may be nominated by anyone.
• Nominations may be made anytime throughout the year.
• Council selects a Task Force of three current board or commission members to review
nominations and make recommendations to Council.
• Nomination information will be on our website.
The Award was publicized starting in January. The Task Force appointments were completed on
April 16, 2012. Applications were reviewed in late April. The task force met and reviewed
applications and made a formal recommendation in June.
Task Force Members, Marjorie Douville, Fire Commission; Jim Gainsley, BOZA; and Justin
Kaufman, Housing Authority; recommend the three candidates Todd Brewer, Bob Ramsey and
Ann Thomas as Outstanding Citizens. Recommendations on all three individuals are attached.
The Task Force would like the recognition to occur on July 16, 2012.
Next steps: If there are no questions on this report, staff will prepare for the formal presentations
to take place on July 16, 2012 and contact the individuals, inform the task force and others
involved in the application process so the awards can be presented.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Recognition is a part of being a Connected and Engaged Community.
Attachments: Individual Nomination Forms Approved by Task Force
Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organization Development Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Date: June 18, 2012
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force recommends the following individual:
to the City Council to receive the Outstanding Citizen Award for the following
reasons:
Todd Brewer is a local business owner and Rotarian. He helped bring the Climbing Rock to the
Westwood Nature Center. He unloads holiday goods for STEP, he gifts families in need, and
uses his own truck to make delivery of bigger items (beds or furniture) to those in need. Todd
has given, through his family foundation, funding to support Meadowbrook academic support for
youth in grades k-8. He has also donated bikes and fixed bikes at no charge for Meadowbrook
children in need. When he learned two school-aged children were sharing sleeping quarters with
an uncle, sleeping in shifts, Todd donated, delivered, and set up bunk beds, dressers, and clean
sheets so the kids could get a good night’s rest. He has given money so a young teen could go
the YMCA Boundary Waters camp.
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force
_____________________________
Marjorie Douville
_____________________________
Jim Gainsley
_____________________________
Justin Kaufman
Todd Brewer
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Outstanding Citizen Award Page 2
Date: June 18, 2012
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force recommends the following individual:
to the City Council to receive the Outstanding Citizen Award for the following
reasons:
In is 40 years of living in St. Louis Park Bob Ramsey has helped start Children First and is an
Asset Champion. He chaired Book Mark in the Park, found funding for Book Mark in the Park,
and chaired the committee for five years. He worked with Friends of the Arts on pursing a
community poet. He volunteers every year at Day One. He was chair of the Senior Summit a
Lenox to bring community elders together to talk with community leaders on issues that are
important to them. He has worked with Parktacular and is a Senior Ambassador, along with his
wife Joyce, for St. Louis Park. Bob is a member of the NORC (Nurturing our Retired Citizens)
Senior Consumer Advisory Committee. He is active in the Successful Aging in the Park group
through volunteering at Park Nicollet. Bob writes columns for the Sun Sailor that are often
about the community and/or the perspective of a community member—these are upbeat and
inspirational. All of this is volunteer work to better the City of St. Louis Park. Bob Ramsey
truly does outstanding work for the City of St. Louis Park. We are a better place because of Bob
Ramsey._______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force
_____________________________
Marjorie Douville
_____________________________
Jim Gainsley
_____________________________
Justin Kaufman
Bob Ramsey
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Outstanding Citizen Award Page 3
Date: June 18, 2012
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force recommends the following individual:
to the City Council to receive the Outstanding Citizen Award for the following
reasons:
Ann Thomas is extremely dedicated to St. Louis Park. She stared “Day One” which is an event
put together to welcome high school students back to school in a unique and exciting way to
show our teenagers they were valued and that school was important. Throughout the years she
has raised money for the theater at the high school, found money for Dollars for Scholars, helped
the Girl Scouts sell cookies. She chaired the All Night Party. She has stayed involved and
volunteering for youth causes event though her children are grown. She is also a volunteer for
Parktacular. The responsibilities she takes on include: working on getting all the door prizes,
finding the sponsorships, attending every committee meeting and encouraging others. Ann
brings spirit and positivity to the Parktacular committee. No matter what the challenges are she
“gets it done”.
The Outstanding Citizen Award Task Force
_____________________________
Marjorie Douville
_____________________________
Jim Gainsley
_____________________________
Justin Kaufman
Ann Thomas
Study Session Meeting of July 9, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Outstanding Citizen Award Page 4