HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/02/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
6:30 PM
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Jacobs Absent.
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 23, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
3. 7:35 p.m. TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project
No. 2004-1700
4. 8:20 p.m. Utility Rate Adjustment
5. 9:05 p.m. Council Policy Question – Refuse Billing Policy
6. 9:15 p.m. Council Policy Question – Refuse Collection Policy
7. 9:25 p.m. Review Advisory Commission Reports and Work Plans
7a. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
7b. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
7c. Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
7d. Board of Zoning Appeal Annual Report
8. 9:40 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning
Districts
10. Update on pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
9:45 p.m. Adjourn
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: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 23, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session for
February 23, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on February 23, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for February 23, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, February 23, 2009 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2010 Budget Process – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
As a follow-up to the Council Workshop, staff will present a revised 2010 budget process to
Council. Does the Council agree with the proposed process?
3. Draft Station Study – Community Development (30 minutes)
Community Development staff to provide an update on the draft station study for the
Southwest Transitway. What does the Council think about the draft study?
4. Minnetonka Boulevard Study – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will lead the Council in a discussion about the Minnetonka Boulevard Study.
5. HRC 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Police (15 minutes - tentative)
Council will review and discuss the Human Rights Commission’s 2008 Year End Report
and 2009 Work Plan on February 9. Does the Council wish to provide feedback to the
Commissioners at the February 23rd study session?
6. PAC 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Police (15 minutes - tentative)
Council will review and discuss the Police Advisory Commission’s 2008 Year End Report
and 2009 Work Plan on February 9. Does the Council wish to provide feedback to the
Commissioners at the February 23rd study session?
7. PRAC 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Park & Recreation Advisory Commission’s
work plan and annual report at the February 23 study session. The Commissioners and staff
liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council at a future study session
if the Council wishes to provide feedback to the Commissioners.
8. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Wind Turbine Zoning – Administrative Services
Park Place Xenia Study – Community Development
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
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:
Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss progress and process for public input on the Comprehensive Plan Update.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed direction and public input process acceptable to the Council?
BACKGROUND:
Staff would like to discuss several topical areas and the public input process of the Comprehensive
Plan with the City Council, as noted in the written report of January 26, 2009.
Much of the technical work needed to update the plan is nearly complete: Barr Engineering is
completing the Surface Water Management Plan, SRF Consulting is completing the Transportation
Plan, SEH completed the Sewer Inflow & Infiltration Study, HKGi is drafting the Land Use and
Housing sections, and other components are being completed by staff internally.
We would like to briefly review the following:
1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan – Attached are the goals and policies section from
the Plan that we will review with you at the meeting. Staff is reviewing it with the Park and
Recreation and Planning Commissions as well.
2. Transportation – Attached are two maps from the plan, which is being drafted by SRF
Consulting. The plan will include:
a. Intent and desire to complete Major Transportation Improvements:
i. Highway 100
ii. Highway 7 and Wooddale
iii. Highway 7 and Louisiana
b. Need to undertake further study of these special areas, possibly including:
i. Louisiana Avenue from I394 to Minnetonka Boulevard
ii. Cedar Lake Road from Flag Avenue to Zarthan Avenue
iii. Minnetonka Boulevard from TH 169 to TH 100 (County Road)
iv. Texas Avenue from West 36th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard
v. Excelsior Boulevard from Alabama Avenue to TH100 (County Road)
c. Address policies related to Southwest Transit and rail in the community
d. Incorporate Sidewalk and Trails Plan and note funding priorities will need to be
discussed and decided in the future.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
3. Land Use – Attached are text and maps related to land use changes. This includes the
following that we will review with you at the meeting:
a. Create a “Business Park” (BP) category that designates areas for light industrial
and/or office uses. This is to better distinguish between “heavy” industrial and
industrial that is lighter in nature and may have a significant office component.
These areas would be in our more visible industrial areas and be required to have a
higher quality finish to the site and building.
b. Combine “Civic Mixed Use” with “Commercial Mixed Use” for a category that
simply called “Mixed Use.” There are currently only two sites designated “Civic
Mixed Use” and this would simplify the map. We would retain the “Civic” category
as well.
c. Change some land use designations as shown on the attached list and maps –
including several areas to the new BP category, some changes in the 36th Street area
in accordance with the Elmwood Plan, and changes around Southwest LRT sites.
4. Public Input Process - The intent is to hire a consultant to help carry out a process for
sharing the draft plan to the community for input from March to Mid-May 2009. We
propose a series of meetings with clusters of neighborhoods grouped by location and
common interests. Eight meetings are proposed; seven with groups of neighborhoods and
one with the business community.
The purpose of the proposed meetings is to share the policy questions addressed in the draft
Comprehensive Plan as they apply to the neighborhoods invited to the cluster meeting.
Some of these issues will be city wide topics and others will be of primary concern to the
immediately affected neighborhoods. The goal is to both share information and gather input
from the city’s residents. The expectation is that the cluster meetings will also serve as an
opportunity to identify neighborhood issues and opportunities that will guide the work of
updating neighborhood plans. Additional follow-up meetings would be held in the fall with
some neighborhoods.
Reports The results of the meetings will be shared at separate meetings with Planning
Commission and City Council at the conclusion of the 8 Community Input meetings and
summarized in a brief Community Input report highlighting the issues and comments raised
at each meeting regarding both the citywide and the neighborhood plans will be prepared by
the consultant.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Plan by Neighborhood The second component of the services being provided by consultants
is the update of the city’s 35 neighborhood plans and the Plan by Neighborhood chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to update the base data, maps, development
guidelines and desired improvements for each of the 35 neighborhoods. The information
gathered through the Community Input Meetings will primary source of input for updating
the neighborhood plans. Other sources should include information from studies and
planning efforts recently completed or currently underway in St. Louis Park. Examples
include the Southwest Transit Station Area plans, Minnetonka Blvd. Study and the Sidewalk
& Trails plan. Other sources should be used including but not limited to census and GIS
data.
The goal is not to create detail plans for each neighborhood, but rather to incorporate
elements from plans and studies done since the previous Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood
section was prepared; and, to identify areas that need further future study or planning action.
It is expected the Plan by Neighborhood would be similar in format and level of detail as the
existing plan.
A second round of neighborhood meetings will occur in the fall of 2009 as follow-up to
issues identified in first meetings. The precise number and nature of those meetings will be
decided once the Community Input meetings have been completed and a better
understanding of the key issues that need to be addressed have be indentified.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This process has been planned and budgeted for through the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Vision process undertaken in 2006 provides the basis for the direction of our Comprehensive
Plan. All of the Vision elements will be incorporated throughout the plan. In this way, we build
each Vision element into our goals, policies and action plans to be implemented on a daily and
weekly basis.
Attachments: Goals and Policies from the draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter
Transportation maps
Proposed “Business Park” description
Maps showing proposed land use designation changes
Generalized Redevelopment Map
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
IX. BP - Business Park
The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage the creation of significant employment
centers that accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs. The Business
Park designation should be applied to larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide a greater
diversity of jobs, higher development densities and jobs per acre, higher quality site and building
design, and increased tax revenues for the community. Office, office-showroom-warehousing,
research and development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and
medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for this land use category. Retail and services, such
as healthcare, fitness, child daycare, dry cleaning, bank, outlet store, coffee shop, restaurant,
convenience store, and lodging should only be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office and
light industrial uses of the employment center.
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
Meeting of Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 17
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input Process
DRAFT
Date: February 9, 2009
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:
TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff desires to update the Council and receive feedback on the current status of the project design,
financing, and project schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the City Council comfortable with the current status of this project, the upcoming
schedule and next steps?
• Should the proposed noise walls be included or excluded from the project?
BACKGROUND:
History and Current Status:
At the November 24, 2008 Study Session, the City Council was provided an update with regards to
the status and progress of the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange project. Presented were the
project design (including specific technical issues such as noise walls and traffic signals), the project
schedule, funding, right of way needs, construction staging, utilities, light rail, and other various
project related issues.
Since the update was provided on November 24, a public hearing on the Environmental Assessment
was conducted on January 6, 2009. This hearing was conducted to comply with federal and state
requirements. Attendance at the hearing was relatively light, and most of the comments expressed
pertained to the same technical issues conveyed to Council at the previous Study Session. These
included comments regarding a proposed noise wall and concerns expressed with regards to
pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
The City’s consulting engineer for the project (SRF) is currently working towards completion of the
final design and submission of plans to Mn/DOT for final review and approval. Offers for additional
right of way and easements have also just recently been made to property owners as a result of
Council action on February 2.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700
Recent correspondence from the Mn/DOT also indicates that the project remains a strong candidate
for funding under the federal government’s proposed economic stimulus plan. In order to retain
eligibility for stimulus funds, staff and SRF have been maintaining an aggressive schedule in order to
provide for a project letting later this spring. Assuming the stimulus package is authorized at the
federal level and this project is included, it is expected that approval of the plans by the City Council
will be needed as soon as possible. We therefore expect to be bringing the plans to Council for
approval as early as March 2 in order to meet the “shovel ready” requirements that have been
conveyed.
Following are a few of the design highlights and remaining design issues previously discussed that
need to be moved toward resolution:
1. As discussed at the Study Session in November of 2008, the intersections of Wooddale with the
ramps and the south frontage road do not warrant signalization at this time, and signals are not
proposed to be installed. However, underground infrastructure will be installed to accommodate
signals in the future if they become warranted.
2. At this time, noise walls are included in the project plans. However, the Council may act to
remove the walls from the design if desired. Based on extensive input from residents and
property owners through the public process and an evaluation of benefits and impacts, staff
recommends removal of noise walls from the project. The following describes the public process
and input received:
a) A required noise analysis conducted as part of the Environmental Assessment process
determined that noise walls along the north side of Highway 7 are required based on the
federal noise level standards. However, the federal process does allow for the deletion of noise
walls if authorized by the City Council. This issue was discussed at the October 21
informational meeting, the November Study Session, and at the Environmental Assessment
Hearing on January 6. Surveys and comment cards were available at the meetings and
residents were encouraged to contact their neighbors and provide input to the City. Surveys
were also mailed directly to the properties closer to Highway 7 where noise level standards
were projected to exceed the federal standards.
b) A copy of the survey results is attached to this report. The majority of the respondents both
inside and outside of the affected area appear to favor elimination of the walls. However, the
reasons and comments provided are varied. Feedback provided thus far by St. Louis Park
Public Schools (Central Community Center and Spanish Immersion School) have also
indicated a preference for removal of the walls. This issue will be presented further at the
Study Session, and the consultant will be available to provide further details with regards to
the noise technical analysis and options available to the Council (attached).
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700
3. Public Art and Aesthetics – As design of the interchange nears completion, the incorporation of
aesthetic elements into the bridge itself is being incorporated. This includes the possibility of
ornamental lighting and simple added formwork to the exterior of the bridge. Further details
will be provided at the meeting.
4. Public and Private Utilities – Prior to construction of the interchange improvements, several
public and private utilities will require relocations and/or adjustments. Of special mention is a
Metropolitan Council (MCES) sewer interceptor that must be either replaced and/or relocated.
As a result, SRF and MCES have had frequent meetings and discussions to incorporate this work
into the interchange construction.
5. Construction Staging – Construction of the improvement is expected to commence in 2009,
and proceed through the end of 2010. Through traffic movement of Wooddale across Highway
7 is expected to be closed through much of 2010 while the bridge and embankments are being
constructed. Over the past couple of weeks, staff, the consultant, and Mn/DOT construction
staff have met to discuss the staging process further, and will be continuing discussions to resolve
further.
6. Right of Way – Some parcels of right of way must be acquired to construct the project. Although
the City owns the majority of the property needed on the south side of Highway 7, some pieces
of property are needed from McGarvey Coffee and the property currently owned by Apex Realty
and occupied by SPS. In addition, relatively small pieces of right of way are also needed along
the north side of the highway from the School District and from the small office building at the
northeast corner of the intersection. Offers have been made to property owners. A resolution
authorizing condemnation was approved by the City Council on February 2 in the event
negotiations do not proceed in a timely fashion.
Subsequent action also requires the signing off of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
by the FHWA prior to the letting of bids. Final sign off of the FONSI and the project itself
cannot occur until all right of way and easements are secured. In order to meet the anticipated
schedule requirements of the federal stimulus, right of way compensation offers and subsequent
acquisition must proceed quickly.
Projected Project Schedule
As previously directed, staff is continuing to proceed with a process that will allow for construction
to commence in the summer of 2009.
The project schedule itself will be contingent in part on funding, including the possibility of
receiving federal stimulus funds. If these funds become available, it is anticipated that the following
schedule will need to be accommodated to make use of the funds:
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700
Study Session Update to Council February 9, 2009
Present Plans to City Council for Approval, declare March 2, 2009
FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact), and
authorize advertisement for bids
Finalize Right of Way acquisitions May, 2009
Approval of EA/Negative Declaration May, 2009
by Mn/DOT and FHWA
Advertise for Bids May 2009
Award Construction Contract June 2009
Commence Construction July 2009
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
While a combination of federal and local funds are known to be available for a share of the project
costs, staff is working with other agencies to identify and secure other funding sources to assist in
paying for the project. The most current and probably best case estimate of cost and funding is as
follows:
Expenditures
Construction (with noise walls) $13,000,000
Right of Way $4,500,000
Preliminary Engineering/Admin $1,000,000
Construction Engineering/Admin $2,000,000
Total $20,500,000
Funding Sources
Development Agreement $69,000
Federal (STIP) Funds $5,885,000
Federal (Stimulus) $7,115,000
City $5,431,000
State of Minnesota (Construction Administration) $2,000,000
Total $20,500,000
As previously noted the federal stimulus package has not yet been authorized. The above funding
scenario assumes federal funds covering 100% of the construction cost with the City and State
partnering on the right of way and engineering costs. Figures and funding sources as listed above
are rough estimates and subject to change or adjustment at any time over the next few months.
Worst case, if federal stimulus monies are not made available, and the County and State provide no
further assistance, the City’s share will increase by another $7 million for a total of about $12.5
million. Thus far the City has spent approximately $4.5 million of the $12.5 million on land
acquisition and project engineering. Further discussion will occur on funding of this project at the
study session.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Interchange Layout
Noise Survey Results and Supporting Exhibits
Noise Wall Options (3)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 6
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 7
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 8
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 9
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 10
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 11
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: TH 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update – Project No. 2004-1700 Page 12
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
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:
2009 Utility Rate Adjustment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff will discuss potential changes in the utility rate structure based on the rate study performed by
city staff and Ehlers & Associates. This discussion will be centered on the proposed tiered rate
structure for water usage and the proposed change in charging for solid waste service above 90 gallon
service. Staff will use this discussion to prepare a resolution for adoption on February 17 to amend
the utility rates for the year.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How do our proposed rates and tiers compare to neighboring communities?
Are the proposed water rate tiers fair and reasonable?
Should the solid waste disposal charges be proportional to the cart size?
Is the City Council comfortable in moving forward the new rates and structure?
BACKGROUND:
City Council discussed this information with Ehlers representatives and city staff on January 13.
There were questions raised regarding the proposed tiering approach that required addition research.
These questions are addressed in this report.
Water Tiers and Rates
There is a new state mandate that conservation rates must be in place in all seven county metro area
cities by the beginning of 2010. This has caused a significant amount of discussion and confusion
among cities and has led a fair number of cities to postpone making a decision on rate increases until
later this year.
The cities that we have surveyed who instituted tiers at this point are shown in the table on the next
page. As you can see, the St. Louis Park proposed tiers are higher than some of the other cities
identified. As far as our survey has shown, these are the only Hennepin County or LOGIS member
cities that have adopted tiers. The Metropolitan Council has given us some guidance that four
person households typically use between 18-20,000 gallons of water per quarter. The comparison
that we have made is for our average usage of 28,500 gallons which we know includes some
multifamily residences. The tiers that we have proposed seem reasonable in comparison.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Utility Rate Adjustment
Year
adopted City
Break
point 1*
Break
point 2*
2008 Brooklyn Park
40,000
80,000
2009 St Louis Park
30,000
60,000
2009 Lakeville
30,000
49,000
2008 Edina
26,250
48,750
2008 Minnetonka
25,000
40,000
2008 Farmington
20,000
40,000
2008 Plymouth
12,500
35,000
*Break points are in gallons used per quarter.
Now the tricky part becomes when to make the new tiers effective. City staff typically likes to
implement rate changes with the “winter quarter consumption.” This refers to the time of year
when outside usage is generally the lowest for each billing group and covers usage between
November and March of each year. We set the sewer charge for the year on this usage on the
assumption that higher water usage is being used out of doors for sprinkling, car washing, and
general cleaning.
We don’t have the ability to implement tiers with the first winter quarter billing for this year. The
time between adoption planned for February 17 and the first billing on February 25 is too tight to
make and test the system changes needed in order to accomplish this task. We also need time to
convert the multifamily accounts to some system that recognizes that their usage is related to the
number of units and not just put them into the tiered system without adjustment. If Council
approves a tiered system, staff proposes that we implement the tiers as soon as practical, but not prior
to the spring quarter billing.
As noted on the chart on the following page, the proposed rates do not seem out of line with our
neighboring cities. Most cities have not adopted new rates yet for 2009, so our proposed rates
should look even better after those adoptions occur. We are in the middle of the pack for rates.
Those cities who are dependent on Minneapolis for water are at the high end of the range, and
newer cities tend to be on the lower end of the range. Given our infrastructure replacement needs,
we believe that increasing the rates as proposed by Ehlers is the responsible thing to do at this time.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Utility Rate Adjustment
Year
Adopted City
Water
Average
Sewer
Average
Total
Average
2008 Maple Grove 29.85 54.98 $84.83
2008 Minnetonka 49.33 37.67 $87.00
2008 Brooklyn Park 44.18 66.98 $111.16
2008 Farmington 45.05 69.55 $114.60
2009 Lakeville 34.75 82.83 $117.58
2008 Edina 42.71 76.10 $118.80
2008 Eagan 45.90 74.13 $120.03
2009 St Louis Park 45.92 76.44 $122.36
2009 Hopkins 53.01 88.35 $141.36
2009 Richfield 66.69 76.95 $143.64
2009 Minneapolis 78.38 69.83 $148.20
2008 Crystal 114.00 45.10 $159.10
2008 Plymouth 88.92 74.39 $163.31
2009 Robbinsdale 109.73 83.22 $192.95
2009 New Hope 111.38 102.33 $213.70
2009 Golden Valley 60.75 156.00 $216.75
Solid Waste Service
The solid waste service is based on a pay-to-throw basis. In order to level the playing field, it appears
necessary to raise rates for service in excess of 90 gallons up to 270 gallons. The proposal is to
establish new categories of service between 90 and 270 gallon services. These are structured so that
each 30 gallons of service receives a new $11.20 increment in the disposal costs. This will have
essentially no effect on users with 30 through 90 gallon service other than an inflationary increase.
Above 120 gallons, it will provide incentive to reduce that amount of waste generated since the cost
will be substantially higher than exists today. This policy change would impact around 500 accounts
with greater than 90 gallon service out of 12,000 total accounts.
Total
2007 2008 2009 Proposed Proposed Charge
Description Svc Levels Rates incl/ Base
Solid Waste - 30 Gallon 37.50 40.00 41.20 30 11.20 $41.20
Solid Waste - 60 Gallon 47.50 50.00 51.50 60 22.40 $52.40
Solid Waste -90 Gallon 57.50 60.00 61.80 90 33.60 $63.60
Solid Waste - 90P Gallon 67.50 70.00 72.10 120 44.80 $74.80
150 56.00 $86.00
Current Gap in Rates 180 67.20 $97.20
210 78.40 $108.40
The 90+ rate code is used for any
combination up to 240 Gallon service.
240 89.60 $119.60
Solid Waste - 270 Gallon 86.41 88.91 91.58 270 100.80 $130.80
Solid Waste - 360 Gallon 105.33 107.83 111.06 360 134.40 $164.40
Solid Waste - 450 Gallon 124.24 126.74 130.54 450 168.00 $198.00
Solid Waste - 540 Gallon 143.16 145.66 150.03 540 201.60 $231.60
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Utility Rate Adjustment
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This discussion is intended to clarify how we need to adjust utility rates to ensure long-range
stability in repairing and maintaining our system without requiring dramatic rate changes in any one
year. This also will provide fairness in distributing the cost of service among users.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Council Policy Question – Refuse Billing Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Councilmember C. Paul Carver will lead the Council in a discussion about a refuse billing policy
question relative to military service.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City Council direct staff to research possible changes to the refuse billing policy?
BACKGROUND:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
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:
Council Policy Question – Refuse Collection Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Councilmember Loran Paprocki will lead the Council in a discussion about refuse collection policies
having to do with cart placement for pickup purposes and cart capacity.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City Council direct staff to research possible changes to the refuse collection policy?
BACKGROUND:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7a
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:
Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the annual report and work plan
prepared by the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) in advance of meeting with the
Commissioners.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the TAC in alignment with Council expectations?
BACKGROUND:
The Telecommunications Commission officially met four times in 2008 and Commissioners
remained involved in other ways including:
• Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Dyer, Jacobson, Hartman and Keeler attended the
April 4 Council Study Session to discuss the Telecommunications Commission annual
report, work plan for 2008 and ParkWiFi.
• Commissioner Dworsky attended 3 eNATOA teleconference educational sessions.
• Commissioners Dworsky, Hartman and Keeler attended the MACTA annual conference in
October.
• Chair Browning contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission activities.
• Commissioner Keeler and Commission liaison Reg Dunlap attended a National Association
of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) conference in Atlanta and reported
back to the Commission.
School District #283 Funding Grant
On May 15 the Commission recommended $35,000 for operating expenses, $10,000 for equipment
requested by School District staff, $4,000 to support the Junior High Video Club and $3,000 for an
additional video editing computer. The Commission felt that the added editing computer would
make it easier for students to complete assignments. The total recommendation of $52,000 was
approved by the City Council on June 2.
School District Facility Rental for Community TV Studio
The Commission continued facility rental of the SHS TV studio, at the rate of 12 hours monthly,
$25/hour. Community TV was the primary client, with hours available 4-8pm, Tues-Wed-Thurs.
by prior reservation.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
WiFi Hotspots
At the joint meeting with the Commission April 14, the City Council approved the concept of a
Commission subcommittee studying WiFi hotspots. A subcommittee was created and had one
meeting with CIO Clint Pires on October 6, with more meetings to follow.
Fiber Optic Ordinance
At the joint meeting with the Commission, there was a Council consensus for staff to prepare a draft
fiber optic ordinance to bring to a Council Study Session, and for staff to facilitate Commission
written reports to Council. During the budget process, $50,000 was included in the City’s 2009
Cable TV budget to do a fiber optic feasibility study.
Broadband Over Power Line Technology (BPL)
The Commission requested a staff report on BPL, a technology for internet access over power lines.
Download speeds are similar to DSL, and BPL is widespread in Europe which uses a different
alternating current system. In the United States, there are no industry-wide standards for BPL, and
trial results have been mixed. Rochester, Minnesota, did a trial, but closed it down. Xcel may
develop BPL and Centerpoint Energy has a trial going on and customers in Houston. The
Commission directed staff to prepare a follow up report, which hasn’t occurred yet.
Digital Television Transition (DTV)
The Commission discussed issues relating to the digital television transition in broadcasting several
times. As a result, staff held a series of public informational meetings at City Hall and Lenox
Community Center. These meetings were promoted in the Park Perspective newsletter.
State Legislative Issues
At the request of the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Advisors
(MACTA), the Commission passed a motion supporting Minnesota Statute 238 and opposing
statewide franchising that would allow a telephone company to serve only the most affluent areas.
The Council passed a Resolution of support on March 3.
Comcast Complaints
Staff categorized complaints logged by city staff as directed by the Commission, and presented the
results at the December 4 meeting (attached). In the last two to three years, these complaint
categories have dramatically increased: billing, rates/prices, and programming options. The
Commission reviews complaints at each meeting, and Comcast’s Public Affairs Administrator
answers questions, explains company policies and follows up on Commission suggestions.
Comcast Audit
The Commission approved a motion on February 21 to direct staff to prepare requests for proposal
for a cable television franchise fee audit, at the discretion of City Council to audit or review, for
2005 through 2007. Staff worked with other cities to partner on costs and minimize the
inconvenience to Comcast, and hired Scott Lewis and Associates to do the audit, which is underway.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
City Relationship with Comcast
At the request of the Commission, staff gave a presentation about the City’s relationship with
Comcast at the August 13 Commission meeting and posted the summary on the City’s web site.
Key points include the City’s franchise, funding provided by Comcast franchise fees and how those
funds are used, and Federal law limitations on City authority.
Comcast Fees and Services Changes Effective January 1, 2009
Staff and Comcast’s Public Affair Coordinator Arlen Mattern addressed new prices and changes in
service at the December 4 meeting.
Officers
Bruce Browning served as Chair for 2008. Vice Chair Bob Jacobson passed away in May. Rolf
Peterson was elected vice chair and Mike Mulligan was appointed to replace Commissioner
Jacobson.
At the December 4 meeting, the Commission elected Toby Keeler as Chair and Rolf Peterson as
Vice Chair for 2009.
Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2008
Commissioner 2/21/0
8
4/14/08
@
Council
Study
Session
5/15/08 8/13/0
8
12/4/0
8
Total
attended
Bruce Browning (Chair) - YES - YES YES 3
Bob Jacobson (Vice Chair)* YES YES 2
Rolf Peterson (Elected Vice
Chair 8/13/08)
YES - - YES YES 3
Rick Dworsky YES YES YES - YES 4
David Dyer YES YES YES YES - 4
Dale Hartman YES YES YES YES YES 5
Toby Keeler YES YES YES - YES 4
Kirk Morrow^ - - YES 1
Mike Mulligan# YES YES 2
*Passed away in May
^Youth appointee, officially resigned at end of school year
#Appointed 7/21/08
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This report supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachment: Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2004-2009
Telecommunications Commission Work Plan: 2009
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Complaint Category Complaints
2004
Complaints
2005
Complaints
2006
Complaints
2007
Complaints
2008*
through
12/4/08
Billing 11 10 36 19 28
Construction (e.g., right
of way, unburied cable,
property damage)
4 7 3 0 2
Customer Service/
Relations (e.g., missed or
late appointments,
company response to
issue, attitude)
10 7 3 8 7
Installation (e.g., property
damage)
0 0 0 0 0
Programming Options
(lost channels, want new
channels)
7 7 12 27 16
Rates, prices 2 6 3 22 16
Technical Service (e.g.,
outage, reception,
equipment faulty/lack of
features)
5 7 15 3 14
Service Requests (e.g.,
residential/commercial)
0 0 0 0 0
Telephone Customer
Service (e.g., hold, busy,
no one available)
9 2 12 10 7
Miscellaneous 0 2 3 8 9
Total Cable Service
Complaints
48 48 87 97 99
Digital Voice/Telephone 0 0 2 2 3
Cable Modem/Internet
Issues
2 3 18 13 6
Combined Total of All
Processed Complaints
(includes Digital
Voice/Telephone and
Cable Modem/ Internet)
50 51 107 112 108
Cable TV complaints received & logged by
city staff
(Some customers reported more than one
complaint)
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
AVERAGE
COMPLAINTS PER
MONTH REPORTED
TO CITY STAFF
4.2 4.3 8.9 9.3 9.8
Total complaint calls
(some callers mention
more than 1 complaint)
89 85 83
Approx number of
subscribers on average for
the year
13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Notes: Time Warner to Comcast transition: August 1, 2006
Time Warner to Comcast billing & service transition in October, 2006 was a big factor. Prior to
October, cable staff received 30 calls, (average of 3.3 per month); after transition began, received 59
calls (mostly billing & email issues).
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
2009 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan
February 12, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Fiber optic ordinance study update
♦ Park TV & Community TV update
♦ Franchise fee audit update
♦ WiFi hot spots subcommittee update
March 23, 2009 Joint meeting at City Council Study Session
May 7, 2009 at the High School or Council Chambers
♦ School District quarterly report & funding for 2008
♦ Fiber optic ordinance study update
♦ Franchise fee audit update
Mid year Commission written report to Council
August 13, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Review draft mid year report
October 8, 2009
♦ Review School District reports
♦ Comcast customer service update
December 10, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up
♦ Draft Annual Report for 2009
♦ Set meetings for 2010
♦ Draft Work Plan for 2010
♦ Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7b
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:
Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the work plan and annual report
prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in advance of the meeting with the
commissioners.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with Council expectations?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has requested drafts of each commission’s work plan and annual report prior to
the annual meeting with the commissioners. The 2009 HRC Work Plan and 2008 HRC Annual
Report are attached for council’s review and discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Human Rights Commission 2008 Annual Report
Human Rights Commission 2009 Work Plan
Diversity Lens
Prepared by: Marney Olson
Reviewed by: John Luse
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2008 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and
full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists
individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for
all of its citizens.
In 2008, the Human Rights Commission has actively participated in several events in the
community. In May the HRC partnered with the Police Advisory Commission at the Children First
Ice Cream Social. HRC brochures, posters, coloring sheets and buttons were available and once
again the ELL classes let us borrow their American Flag poster that tells the story of why many of the
students moved to America.
Perspectives hosted a Resource Fair at Louisiana Court in July and the HRC had a booth at this
event. It was a great opportunity to meet more St. Louis Park residents and tell them about the
HRC. Several other local resources participated in the fair which also provided an opportunity to
learn about other resources that are available to residents of St. Louis Park. Following the Resource
Fair the HRC participated in Neighborhood Night Out at Meadowbrook on August 5th. All of
these events gave the HRC an opportunity to reach out to the community and let residents know
that St. Louis Park has a Human Rights Commission.
An ongoing project for the HRC has been to examine the Diversity section of Vision St. Louis Park
and develop goals/recommendations for actions. This Vision update was discussed at the August
11th Study Session. The Diversity Lens, created with input from the HRC and city staff, is now
available in magnet form and will be distributed to city staff to use as a tool to incorporate diversity
into all aspects of city work. In addition, the HRC will distribute the Diversity Lens at future events
in 2009.
Following the success of the 2007 International Film Series, the HRC sponsored two films in 2008,
September 18th and November 20th.
The September film, “A Dream in Doubt”, is an immigrant story in a world in which patriotism has
morphed into murder. When Rana Singh Sodhi’s brother is killed in America’s first post-9/11
revenge murder, he begins a journey to reclaim his American dream and fight the hate that continues
to threaten his community. This intimate, hour-long documentary of one man’s odyssey from
persecution in India to embracing America as his homeland proves that courage and hope have the
power to overcome hate.
The September film was not shown due to poor attendance. Prior to our November film, the HRC
discussed additional ways to promote the upcoming film. Through additional outreach including
getting the film flyer on Rainbow Families website the November film played to a full house.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
“Our House” was the November film and is a groundbreaking documentary that explores what it's
like to grow up with gay or lesbian parents. Following the film, a St. Louis Park father and son led a
discussion for film goers. One of the messages we heard over and over from people attending the
film is how lucky residents of St. Louis Park are to live in a community that is so welcoming of all
families. The speaker answered questions and shared some of his son’s experiences as the son of two
fathers. The success of this event was attributed to film topic and the extra outreach and promotion
of this film.
The HRC sponsored a Human Rights Award in 2008; however, the commission will be reviewing
the nominations and selecting a winner(s) at the January 2009 meeting.
The HRC also responds to Bias/Hate Crimes and the HRC sends a letter and HRC brochure to the
victims. The 2008 Bias/Hate Crimes report is below:
Offense
Date
Police Case
#
Summary Information
2/10/08 08000764 5th Degree Assault – assault due to victim’s sexual orientation
9/10/08 08005483 Damage to Property at 2025 Texas Ave (Jr. High) – swastika
etched into the partition wall in boys’ bathroom.
11/5/08 08006654 Unwanted/Obscene Communications – WM received racist
text message. Reported to police because of offensive
message.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2009 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all
citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this
community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of
equity and respect for all of its citizens.
HRC Participation in Community Events:
• In 2009, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community events including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o 2009 Community Open House
o Meadowbrook National Night Out
• Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St. Louis Park in the metro
area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find ways to notify our residents of these events
such as through the use of an HRC webpage.
• Film Series
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
• Use the Diversity Lens as a tool to make connections with local agencies, organizations, etc. HRC members
present the Diversity Lens which will give these organizations a tool and reminder to incorporate diversity into
their events.
o Hire Diversity Training consultant to teach a diversity class to the HRC and develop a Diversity Lens
presentation/training that we can use in the community.
o Compile a list of agencies/organizations to approach to share the Diversity Lens.
o Create a list of activities that are going on in SLP that we could participate in or talk to the planning
committee about the Diversity Lens
• City/School Calendar – present idea to calendar creators of featuring a diverse group in our community each
month…telling the story of “who we are” as a community.
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
• Continue to build a better connection with the Adult Education and ELL Programs.
• Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
• Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
• Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
• Sponsor a Human Rights Essay Contest and/or Poster Contest winner for the state competition.
• Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7b) Page 5
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7c
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:
Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the annual report and work plan
prepared by the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) in advance of the meeting with the
Commissioners.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has requested drafts of each Commission’s annual report and work plan prior to
the annual meeting with Commission representatives. The 2008 PAC Annual Report and 2009
PAC Work Plan are attached for Council’s review and discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: PAC 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Police Advisory Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
The Purpose of the Police Advisory Commission year end report is to share the progress of the Police
Advisory Commission (PAC) with the Council and to set forth a plan for work to be done in 2009.
The Police Advisory Commission mission: The purpose of the Police Advisory Commission is to
enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services. To provide an
opportunity for citizen involvement in police services. To encourage exchange between the police
department and the community.
Community Liaison Marney Olson and Lt. Lori Dreier updated the Commissioners on the
Visioning process. Commissioners discussed the importance of the process and provided feedback
regarding the commitment to being a connected and engaged community, especially traffic related
issues.
Commissioner Markgraf met with police department staff and Jamie Zwilling to produce a
marketing flyer for the Police Department, titled Get to Know Your St. Louis Park Police. The flyer
was designed to introduce the department’s mission and operating principles to the public. The
flyer was distributed to the public during the Childrens First Ice Cream Social and to Block Captains
during Neighborhood Night Out.
Several Commissioners worked with Human Rights Commissioners to staff a booth at the Childrens
First Ice Cream Social. Commissioners provide information to the public about the commission and
the police department.
As a member of the Traffic Sub-Committee Commissioner Widmer has been attending the city staff
Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic Advisory group is comprised of members of the Public
Works, Community Development, and Police Departments. The group meets every month to
discuss traffic related issues within the community. Commissioner Widmer actively provides citizen
input on traffic related issues and street projects.
The Traffic Sub-Committee has been working on an informational brochure concept titled
Experience Biking in the Park. This initiative was in response to the Council’s request to work on
traffic and bicycle related issues in 2008. The brochure includes a trail map and info on some of the
relevant laws both bikers and drivers should be aware of. The committee is scheduling a meeting
with the Park and Recreation staff to complete the project.
The Second Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on
September 5, 2008. It was another successful year, earning $3487 dollars for the Crime Prevention
Fund. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with the police
department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention Fund. PAC
will continue with this effort in 2009 and plan to get publicize the event in early 2009.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues,
Commissioner Pat Swiderski is attending the Human Rights Commission meetings. Commissioner
Swiderski participates in Human Rights Commission activities and is encouraging their
Commissioners to participate in Police Advisory Commission activities. We have jointly discussed
the idea of organizing an immigrant forum similar in nature to the Somolian forum previously
sponsored by the HRC.
The fourth Citizen’s Academy was offered in 2008. Eighteen community members completed the
2008 Academy. Public reaction to this series of classes is always positive and it allows the public to
connect with and learn more about the Police Department. Commissioners assisted Officer Czapar
with welcoming participants at the first class session.
The 2009 work plan for the PAC is as follows:
• Attend the Childrens First Ice Cream Social with the goal of providing information to the
public about the commission and the police department
• Work with the HRC with the goal of organizing an immigrant forum similar in nature to
the Somolian forum previously sponsored by the HRC. The PAC goal would be to provide
information about police activities and services
• Continue working with the City’s Traffic Advisory Committee, along with the Parks and
Recreation Department with the goal of publishing a bicycle safety / trail map.
• Produce a bicycle safety program for the Inside the Park Community TV
• Produce quarterly public safety information programs for the Inside the Park Community
TV
• Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund Golf
Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7d
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:
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The annual report summarizes the number and type of variance applications received in 2008. It also
compares the activities of each year beginning with 2006. The annual report is attached for your
review. The BOZA and planning staff request feedback and guidance from Council regarding the
report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the activities of BOZA in alignment with City Council expectations?
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Council policy, the 2008 Annual Report is attached in full for City Council
review.
The report shows an increase in the number of variance applications made to the city since 2007. The
Board heard six applications in 2007 and 13 in 2008. Although the report doesn’t show years prior to
2006, staff did look at 2004 and 2005 to get a better idea of how many variances the city processes per
year. In 2004 the city received 10 applications and in 2005 the city received nine. It appears that
2006, with 24 variances seems to be unusually high. There were several zoning amendments made in
March of 2006 that relaxed the setback and open space requirements. These amendments were made
prior to receiving the majority of the variance requests, and most likely reduced the number of
variances that would have been received in 2006 from a number higher than the 24 we received. It
appears that 2006 is simply an anomaly that saw an unusual amount of variances. Staff will continue
to monitor the type and number of variances received each year to look for patterns or certain zoning
regulations that may need to be reviewed
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: 2008 BOZA Annual Report
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning &Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Board of Zoning Appeals Commission Members
Paul Roberts, Chair
Susan Bloyer, Vice-Chair
James Gainsley, Board Member
Ryan Burt, Board Member
Henry Solmer, Board Member
Board of Zoning Appeals
2008 Annual Report
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) established:
Section 2-301 – 305 of the City Code establishes the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Membership:
The Board consists of five regular members appointed by the city council for three-year terms. The members of the
board are to be qualified voters and residents of the city.
A staff liaison to the Board is appointed by the city manager. The staff liaison is the Assistant Zoning
Administrator, Gary Morrison.
Meetings:
The Board meets once a month, at 6pm on the fourth Thursday of the month.
Powers and duties.
The responsibilities of the BOZA include:
(1) Hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit decision or refusal or determination
made by the zoning administrator under the zoning chapter and from any interpretation of the text of
the zoning chapter, or any location of the boundary of a zoning district as shown on the official zoning
map made by the zoning administrator, in accordance with all requirements of local and state laws.
(2) Hear and decide on requests for variances from the terms of the zoning chapter in the manner and
subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the zoning chapter and applicable state laws.
(3) Communicate with the city council its recommendations, records of proceedings and any other method
of reporting as may be deemed appropriate by the city council.
(4) Act in an advisory capacity to the city council and hear and make recommendations to the city council
on all matters referred to the board or upon which it is required to act under the zoning chapter.
Decision subject to appeal to the city council.
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the BOZA may appeal the decision to the city council. The appeal must be
filed with the planning department within ten days of issuance of the BOZA decision.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 3
In 2008, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) heard seven variance applications.
Four applications involved multiple variance requests, resulting in a total of 13 variances requested in
2008.
The BOZA approved 11 variances, and denied two variances. One decision was appealed to the City
Council. The Council reversed the BOZA denial, and approved the variance.
The following is a summary of the types of variances applied for since 2006.
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2006 2007 2008
RESIDENTIAL
Setbacks Attached Garages:
Interior side setback: 2 0 1
rear setback: 2 0 3
side yard abutting the street setback: 1 0 3
Living Space:
front setback: 1 0 0
Interior side setback: 2 1 1
side yard abutting the street setback: 1
Covered Porch:
front setback: 1 0 0
Eave (side setback): 2 3 0
Deck:
Interior side setback: 0 1 0
Miscellaneous: 0 0 2
Open Lot Area (1) Living Space: 1 0 0
Attached Garage: 1 0 0
No Build Area (2) Attached Garage 3 0 0
Gravel Driveway 1 0 0
Total Residential Variances: 17 5 11
COMMERCIAL
rear setback: 1 0 0
front setback: 0 1 0
side yard abutting the street: 1 0 1
Floor Area Ratio: 1 0 0
Parking Spaces: 1 0 0
Restaurant to Residential setback: 2 0 0
Bufferyard: 1 0 0
Expand a non-conformity 0 0 1
Total Commercial
Variances: 7 1 2
Total Variances: 24 6 13
(1) A 20 foot by 20 foot or 20 foot by 30 foot open area in the back yard. This requirement was
removed in 2006.
(2) Open area required when a back yard is adjacent to a neighbor's front yard.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 4
John & Lesa Tieszen – 4000 Cedarwood Road
BOZA Date: January 24, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a variance to the rear yard for
an existing non-conforming garage. The applicant desired
to add living space to the home, but could not do so, even
though it met all setbacks, because the existing garage was
legally non-conforming. City code does not allow
additions to structures that are legally non-conforming.
Granting the variance for the existing garage removed the
non-conforming status, thereby making it possible to add
onto the house. The variance is to the left of the garage,
which by definition is the back yard. The addition,
however, was located behind the house.
Before Photograph:
After Photograph:
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 5
Paul & Diane Bischel 3700 Glenhurst Avenue S.
BOZA Date: January 24, 2008
BOZA Action: Denied a 15.2 foot variance to
the required 25 foot rear yard setback resulting in
a 9.8 foot rear yard setback for the construction
of a garage and living space addition.
Council Appeal Decision: The Council
reversed the BOZA decision, and approved the
variance to allow a 9.8 foot rear yard setback for a
garage and living space addition.
Before Photograph
After Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 6
5812 Excelsior Blvd LLC
BOZA Date: April 24, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a variance to allow
the expansion of a legally non-conforming
parking lot, and a 5.0 foot variance to the
required 5.0 foot side yard abutting the street
setback for the parking lot.
Before Photograph
After Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 7
Mark & Sandy DeGonda 5700 39th Street W.
BOZA Date: May 29, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a 5.6 foot variance to the
side yard abutting the street and a 2.2 foot variance
to the side yard abutting the street for an attached
garage and living space addition, and denied a 7.5
foot variance to the side yard abutting the street
and a five foot variance to the rear yard.
These actions resulted in a smaller approved
addition. As of the date of this report, the property
owners did not begin construction of the addition.
After Photograph
Before Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 8
Tracy Minder 5101 28th Street W.
BOZA Date: June 26, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a one foot, eight
inch variance to the interior side yard and an
eight inch variance to the side yard abutting the
street for the construction of a new home.
28th Street
Minnetonka Blvd
After Photograph
Before Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 9
Rebecca & Nathan Akers 6121 42th Street W.
BOZA Date: October 23, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a 3.0 foot variance to
the side for a proposed attached garage.
As of the date of this report, the property owners
had not begun construction of the proposed
attached garage.
After Photograph
Before Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 10
AT&T 7200 Lake Street W.
BOZA Date: October 23, 2008
BOZA Action: Approved a 48.5 foot variance to
the required 57 foot side yard, and an 11 foot
variance to the required 57 foot front yard
setback for a proposed ten foot addition to an
existing communication tower.
After Photograph
Before Photograph
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 7d)
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2008 Annual Report Page 11
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
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:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None.
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This item has to be removed from “the table” at a regular council meeting
before it can be formally considered.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require conditional use permits (CUPs) in residential
zoning districts for religious uses and for educational uses serving more than 20 students?
BACKGROUND:
• November 3, 2008, the City Council adopted the 1st Reading of the ordinance to require several
institutional uses in residential zoning districts to be allowed only with Conditional Use Permits.
• November 17, 2008 the 2nd reading of the ordinance was tabled.
• December 8, 2008, the City Council asked to place this item on the January 12, 2009 Study
Session for discussion.
• January 12, 2009, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance at length and directed staff
to prepare a revised draft amendment to require a CUP in residential districts for educational
uses serving 20 or more students and religious uses.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
As directed by the City Council January 12 study session, staff revised the proposed amendments to
allow educational facilities with 20 or fewer students as “permitted with conditions”, and to require a
CUP for religious uses and for educational facilities serving more than 20 students. Community
centers, libraries, police/fire stations, bed and breakfasts and transit stations would continue to be
allowed in Residential districts as “permitted with conditions”.
Approval process:
This amendment would allow a school with 20 or fewer students to locate in a residential district
with administrative review (“permitted with conditions”). The school would have to meet the
conditions of the zoning ordinance, including the specific conditions required in the “permitted with
conditions” section of the zoning district it is proposing to locate in.
A CUP would be required for:
• Any new school with more than 20 students proposing to occupy a building not previously
or currently utilized as a school.
• An addition to an existing building made to expand an educational use.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
A CUP would not be required for a new school with more than 20 students if it occupies an existing
school building, and does not modify the exterior of the building. This would allow a school to
occupy space in a building such as the Eliot Community Center with administrative review because
the building had already been reviewed and approved as an Educational facility.
The proposed amendment allows educational facilities with 20 or fewer students; however, the
amendment encourages them to locate in existing educational facilities where they have room to
grow. Schools with 20 or fewer students that are administratively approved face a dilemma when
they plan to exceed 20 students. The facility they may have leased or purchased, and then desire to
modify, may not meet the zoning, building and/or fire code regulations required for a larger
educational facility. If this is the case, they would have to relocate and/or find a buyer or use for the
small residentially zoned building that they previously remodeled to accommodate their school.
Conditions of approval:
Each proposed use includes conditions specific to the use, which are designed to reduce the impact it
will have on adjacent properties. The amendment does not include conditions pertaining to parking
and landscaping, as they are sufficiently addressed elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. General
zoning regulations pertaining to parking and landscaping at religious and educational facilities are
summarized below. There are no changes proposed to these requirements. They are existing
requirements and they would continue to apply.
Parking:
Section 36-361 of the zoning ordinance regulates the number of required vehicle and bicycle parking
spaces, condition of the driveway and parking lot, lighting and size of drive aisles and parking spaces.
It also contains regulations pertaining to loading and service areas.
Required number of parking spaces is as follows:
Religious 1 space per 3 seats in the assembly area, and
1 space per 25 sf of dining area.
Bicycle – Religious 1 space per 10 required vehicle parking spaces
Elementary & Junior High School 2 spaces per classroom
Senior High School 1 space per 4 students based on building capacity, and
1 space per 2 classrooms.
Bicycles – Schools 1 space per 10 students
Other general parking regulations are as follows:
• Parking lots and driveways must be paved, and have concrete curbs.
• Parking lots containing six or more spaces must be lit.
• Parking is allowed in the front yard only if the back and side yards are not accessible.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
Section 36-162(e)(3)k – Residential District Regulations also require the following for single family
lots. The proposed zoning amendment clarifies that these regulations apply to the small school.
• Driveway and parking spaces shall not exceed 30% of the front yard.
• Driveways shall not exceed an average width of 22 feet in the front yard.
Landscaping:
Section 36-364 of the zoning ordinance establishes the number of required trees and shrubs, the
screening standards and general landscaping maintenance.
This section of the code requires:
• One tree and six shrubs per 50 feet of site perimeter.
• Screening of parking lots and loading/service areas. The screening must be a combination
of landscaping and a fence, wall or berm at least six feet in height.
• Screening that provide 100% opacity year round.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Proposed Zoning Ordinance
January 5, 2009 – Council study session staff report – Conditional Use
Permits in Zoning Districts
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-163, 164, 165, 166, 167
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 08-08-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-163, 164, 165, 166, and 167 is
hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are
represented by ***.
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-1 district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-162 and
those specified for the use in this subsection.
***
(3) Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
a. The school shall be limited to preschool through eighth grade.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
c. Student drop-off and loading areas shall not interfere with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
d. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student enrolled at the school.
***
(7) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-1 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-365 and with the specific
conditions imposed in this subsection.
***
(5) Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as
follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
(6) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-2 district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-162 and
those specified for the use permitted in this subsection.
***
(3) Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
a. The school shall be limited to preschool through eighth grade.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Student drop-off and loading areas shall not interfere with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
d. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student enrolled at the school.
***
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
(7) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R
district.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-2 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-365(b) and with the specific
conditions imposed in this subsection and such other conditions as may be imposed by the city
council under section 36-34(b).
***
(3) Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as
follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
(4) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 8
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-3 district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-162 and
those specified for the use in this subsection (c):
***
(4) Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
a. The school shall be limited to preschool through eighth grade.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Student drop-off and loading areas shall not interfere with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
d. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student enrolled at the school.
***
(8) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 9
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-3 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
residential restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162, all the general conditions
provided in section 36-365, the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and such other
conditions as may be imposed by the city council under subsection (b) of section 36-34.
***
(4) Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as
follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
(5) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 10
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
Sec. 36-166. R-4 multiple-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-4 district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if its use complies with the residential restrictions and performance
standards of section 36-162 and those conditions specified for the use in this subsection (c):
***
(6) Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an R district, unless
approved as a conditional use.
b. An off-street school bus pickup and dropoff area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any
lot in an R district.
a. The school shall be limited to preschool through eighth grade.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Student drop-off and loading areas shall not interfere with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
d. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student enrolled at the school.
***
(10) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot in an R district.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 11
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-4 district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-365 and with the specific
conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and such other conditions as may be imposed by the city
council under section 36-34(b).
***
(8) Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as follows:
a. The school is limited to 20 or fewer students; and Buildings shall be located at least
50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. The school is limited to grades k-8. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be
located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R district.
c. An off-street passenger loading area school bus pickup and dropoff area shall be
provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
d. The school property shall not adjoin any R-1, R-2 or R-3 property that is used or
subdivided for residential. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the
comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that
access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential
streets.
e. The school building must be residential in character.
(9) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
Sec. 36-167. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 12
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an R-C district may be used for one
or more of the following uses if it complies with the residential restrictions and performance
standards of section 36-162 and with those specified for the use in this subsection:
***
(6) Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street school bus pickup and dropoff area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any
lot in an R district.
d. Conditions listed in subsections (c)(6)a. through (c)(6)c. of this section and certain
performance standards may be waived or amended if so specified in a redevelopment
plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the city comprehensive plan.
e. The property shall be designated for civic or civic-mixed use in the comprehensive
plan.
a. The school shall be limited to preschool through eighth grade.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Student drop-off and loading areas shall not interfere with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
d. An outdoor play area shall be provided that contains at least 40 square feet per
student enrolled at the school.
***
(10) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot in an R district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 13
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Conditions listed in subsections (c)(10)a. and (c)(10)b. of this section and certain
performance standards may be waived or amended if so specified in a redevelopment
plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the city comprehensive plan.
d. The property shall be designated for civic or civic-mixed use in the comprehensive
plan.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-C district shall
be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the
residential restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162, the general conditions of
section 36-367, and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection as follows:
***
(6) Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as
follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
***
(7) Religious institutions. The conditions are as follows:
a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot in an R district.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 14
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
R district.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 08-08-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading November 3, 2008
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 15
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
Meeting Date: January 5, 2009
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:
Conditional Use Permits in the Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
In preparation for the discussion on requiring CUP’s for certain institutional uses at the Council
Study Session of January 12, 2009, the City Council has asked Staff to provide general background
information on the Conditional Use Permit tool.
The City’s zoning ordinance establishes a series of land use districts. Each district is designed to
accommodate its own set of land uses and has its own set of development standards (density,
setbacks, maximum building heights, etc.). Within each district the specific uses are grouped into
four categories. The categories are:
1. permitted uses,
2. uses permitted with conditions,
3. uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and,
4. uses permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Each of these four categories represents a different level of regulation, public process and discretion
of approval by the city. Permitted uses have the fewest specific rules, the least public process and the
least discretion for approval. PUD uses require the most public process and are the most stringently
controlled.
Applications for uses allowed under the categories of permitted, and permitted with conditions do
not require a public hearing, Planning Commission or City Council review; they are reviewed and
approved by Staff. Applications for uses requiring a conditional use permit or planned unit
development require public notification, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and
City Council approval. Permitted with conditions and conditional uses usually have a specific set
of conditions that are required. Those requirements are listed in the zoning ordinance by district.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 16
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
A Conditional Use is a use that is permitted in a district only upon issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) by the City Council. The land use is generally considered an appropriate use for the
zoning district in question; however, specific proposals are reviewed in more detail through the CUP
process to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Reasonable conditions may be
placed on the use to minimize any potential adverse impacts on the community.
State statute gives cities the authority to designate uses that will require a conditional use permit
(statute is attached). The City’s zoning ordinance defines what is meant by the term conditional use
and the process for reviewing proposed CUPs (see attached text).
A CUP requires notification of property owners within 350 feet of the site, and a public hearing held
by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council. City Council approval is by a resolution for the permit.
The following table shows the categories for land uses in the city’s zoning ordinance.
Land Use Categories
PERMITTED PERMITTED WITH
CONDITIONS
CONDITIONAL
USES
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
Allowed with a
“Registration of Land
Use” (RLU).
Zoning
Administrator
determines if use is
allowed by zoning, if
there are any previous
approvals or
restrictions on the
property, and if
parking is adequate.
RLU required.
Specific conditions
listed in the zoning
ordinance under this use
must be met.
Requires:
Notification of
property owners
within 350’ of
property
Public hearing
before the
Planning
Commission
Approval of
permit by City
Council
Specific conditions
listed in zoning code
must be met.
Additional, reasonable
conditions may be
placed on use to
ensure neighborhood
compatibility (such as
hours of operation,
etc.).
Requires:
Notification of
property owners
within 350’ of
property
Public hearing
before the
Planning
Commission
Approval of
permit by City
Council
Specific conditions
listed in zoning code
must be met.
Flexibility in site
design is encouraged.
Modifications to
zoning district
standards for certain
items are allowed.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 17
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
SUMMARY
Conditional uses are allowed uses; however they are required to undergo the extra scrutiny of a
public hearing and City Council approval process. Conditions may be placed on the use to make it
more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: State Statutes governing Conditional Uses
City Zoning Ordinance sections governing Conditional Uses
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 18
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
State Statute Governing Conditional Use Permits:
462.3595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Subdivision 1.Authority.
The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, including
planned unit developments, and certain land development activities as conditional uses
under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or
other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria
stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both
general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements
specific to each designated conditional use.
Subd. 2.Public hearings.
Public hearings on the granting of conditional use permits shall be held in the manner
provided in section 462.357, subdivision 3.
Subd. 3.Duration.
A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are
observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality from enacting or
amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Subd. 4.Recording of permit.
A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be recorded with the county recorder
or registrar of titles of the county or counties in which the municipality is located for
record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property
included.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 19
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
From City’s Zoning Ordinance:
36-4 Definitions
Conditional use means a specific type of structure or land use which is permitted by this chapter
only after an in-depth review procedure set forth in section 36-33 and with appropriate conditions
or restrictions as provided in this chapter and upon finding that:
(1) Certain conditions as detailed in this chapter exist; and
(2) The structure and land use conform to the comprehensive plan and are compatible with
the existing neighborhood.
36-33 (c) Conditional use permits. The city council may grant conditional use permits for uses
and purposes authorized by this chapter by resolution and may impose such additional conditions
and safeguards in permits as may be necessary to protect the comprehensive plan and the general
purpose and intent of this chapter. Applications for conditional use permits shall include a site plan
and such other information required by the city which shall be processed in the following way:
(1) Referral to planning commission. The request for a conditional use permit shall be referred
to the planning commission for study of the effect of the proposed use on the
comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood. The
planning commission shall recommend to the city council whether to grant or deny the
conditional use permit request and, if the recommendation is to approve the request, the
conditions which should be attached to the conditional use permit.
(2) Issuance. In considering an application for a conditional use permit under this chapter, the
city council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission
and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants of
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent
streets, values of property in the surrounding area, and the objectives of the comprehensive
plan. If it shall determine, by resolution, that the proposed use will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, will not cause serious traffic
congestion or hazards, will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that it
is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive
plan, the city council may grant such permits and may impose conditions and safeguards in
the permit as a condition of its approval.
(3) Action without planning commission recommendation. If no recommendation is
transmitted by the planning commission within 60 days after the application for
conditional use permit has been referred to the commission, the city council may take
action on the request without a recommendation of the planning commission.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 20
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
(4) Conditional use permits. No application for a conditional use permit under the provisions
of this chapter shall be filed until the applicant has paid the city treasurer the application fee
adopted by the city council.
(5) Assent forms. No conditional use permit shall become valid until the applicant has signed
an assent form according to subsection (b)(3) of this section.
(6) Reimbursement. No conditional use permit shall become valid until the applicant has paid
to the city all fees due according to section 36-35(b).
(7) Building permits. No building permit shall be issued for any property for which the city
council has approved a conditional use permit until the applicant has paid to the city all
required fees, has signed an assent form, and has filed with the city clerk any required letter
of credit or other security.
Sec. 36-365. Standards and conditions for conditional use permits.
(a) Conditional uses. The conditional uses shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan,
regulations, purposes and procedures of this chapter. The city council shall approve all conditional
use permits which are issued and may attach such conditions to any permit as shall be determined to
be necessary or convenient to better accomplish the intent of the comprehensive plan and this
chapter and to minimize the impact of the use on adjacent properties. The city council may consider
the provisions relating to the use of the land of any redevelopment plan or development district
program approved pursuant to state law, as amended from time to time, and may incorporate such
provisions in a conditional use permit when deemed necessary. Conditional uses shall be consistent
with the general conditions listed in subsection (b) of this section. Other more specific conditions for
any use requiring a conditional use permit may be included in this article which regulates use
districts or may be imposed by the city as a part of the conditional use permit if the topography or
other characteristics of the land or the character of the use or manner of operation of the use shall
require them.
(b) General conditions. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the following findings
are made:
(1) It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations,
redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the
comprehensive plan.
(2) It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a
whole.
(3) It is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the zoning district in which
the conditional use is located.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 21
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Educational and Religious Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
(4) It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements
which are either existing or proposed.
(5) It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close
proximity to the conditional use.
(6) It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or
under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the
state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. These
plans shall be presented to the community development director with the application for
the conditional use permit. The community development director shall prepare a report for
the city council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans.
(7) It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for city water, sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone, and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service
facilities prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part
of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. These plans shall be presented to
the director of public works with the application for the conditional use permit. The
director of public works shall prepare a report for the city council reviewing the adequacy
and feasibility of such plans.
(8) It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use permit
when, in the opinion of the city council, such additional conditions are necessary to protect
the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions
may be imposed in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance
standards, conditions or requirements in this chapter are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in section 36-1. In these circumstances, the city council may impose
restrictions and conditions on the conditional use permit which are more stringent than
those set forth in this section and which are consistent with the general conditions listed in
this subsection (b).
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on this large,
pending project. The Sunset Ridge Association anticipates petitioning the City Council to conduct a
Public Hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees this spring.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing
improvements. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established four HIA’s to date
(see attachments).
BACKGROUND:
Sunset Ridge is located between 2010
and 2260 Ridge Drive.
• There are nine buildings with 240
total units.
• Built in the early 80’s.
• 75% of the units are owner
occupied.
• The 2008 median EMV of the units
is $126,000.
• Unit values range from $104,500 to
$153,000.
The City’s policy requires that only
associations where the median unit value
is less than or equal to Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency’s 1st time Home Buyers limit of $298,000, can apply for the HIA.
History
Sunset Ridge Association has been working towards acquiring HIA designation since they contacted
staff in early 2006 for possible assistance to address significant deterioration of siding and windows
on the buildings. Based on this discussion the Board had a financial and physical needs plan
developed to determine what improvements would be needed and developed a plan to finance them
now and in the future. The Board then began the process of determining the scope of work;
identifying contractors and communication with membership.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
1. In April 2008 they submitted a preliminary application to us with the scope of improvements
estimated at $4,700,000. This would result in an average fee per unit of almost $21,000. This
is a significant loan amount compared to the value of the units. The average annual fee would
be $2,111, with a monthly fee of $175.
2. Over the summer, the association put the HIA on hold while they negotiated with the insurance
company to cover damages caused by the hail storm last May. In the end the roof costs were
covered by the insurance, but siding and windows were not. So, the final scope of work for the
HIA loan remained the same. In early November 2008 the final costs (see attached Ehlers
allocation table) were made known to members and petitions were distributed to owners. The
board has received petitions from a majority of owners, to pursue establishing an HIA and have
fees imposed.
3. The economic conditions of the 3rd quarter of 2008 and the high project costs have caused the
Board to reconsider the project’s scope. A new board was elected in January 2009 and a new
property management company has been hired. The new board has been re-working the scope
of work, garnering additional input from members, and looking at options to reduce the cost of
the loan. The improvements are very basic: siding, soffits, gutters and windows, so there are “no
unnecessary cosmetic” improvements. The board is considering cutting costs by using lower
grade windows. The board is cognizant that in addition to the improvement costs, monthly
association fees are being increased to ensure future reserves will cover future needs as outlined in
the reserve study.
4. The Board has determined that the work needs to be done, and it costs a lot of money. Delaying
the work will only result in further deterioration of the buildings some of which are experiencing
mold and moisture problems due to poor siding and windows. They are prepared to request a
public hearing while continuing to work to reduce the loan amount to make it more affordable.
Issues
Taking on additional debt during uncertain economic conditions is a challenge to the association,
and the new board seems to be taking this very seriously, looking at all options to reduce the loan
amount. They have had several meetings to garner additional membership input; one of the Board
members is a project manager for a large metro construction firm and is bringing his expertise to the
board. The new management company has a solid reputation for stressing long term property
maintenance.
• There are 30 owners that have purchased units since 2003, when prices were high. These owners
could be in a situation where the additional debt load could result in a higher debt load than
unit value. The board is polling owners that purchased since 2003, to determine the impact of
the additional debt.
• There may be other owners burdened by the loan. The board is being directed to contact
Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County to provide home finance counseling to all
owners that could be significantly burdened by the loan.
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
• Low-income seniors, (over 65 years), could be eligible for the City’s hardship deferment of
special assessments.
.
City Financing of the Loan
A 20 year loan is being considered to lower the monthly payments to the most affordable level
feasible. The City Manager and Finance Director are considering the use of either internal financing
or bond issuance and will make a recommendation to the Council. The benefit to residents of
internal financing is that it lowers costs by approximately $100,000 by avoiding bond issuance and
underwriting costs. If the City were to internally finance this, the Development Fund would be a
likely source. From the City’s point of view, the level of risk is really no different in terms of internal
vs. external financing. The real question for the City regarding internal financing relates to whether
we will have sufficient dollars available for other needs. One upside to internally financing this is
that the rate of return on the investment would be greater than what we are able to derive from the
market right now (5 or 6% vs. 2%) Staff is recommending to the Association that the project
proceed later in the year rather than earlier to reduce capitalized interest costs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This is the largest amount of money to be requested by an Association, with an average loan that
amounts to 17% of the median value of the units. The other HIA loans to unit value ranged from
4% to 14%. Our experience has been that the rate of HIA repayment delinquencies is the same as
the citywide property tax delinquency rate which is quite low. The risk to the city of non-payment is
low for three reasons, in the event of foreclosure, tax payments are first paid, the association assigns
its assets (reserve funds) to the city; finally there is 105% debt coverage.
As this project proceeds thru the City’s formal process staff will provide additional details on the
merits of this proposal.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The preservation of modest valued owner occupied homes is consistent with the vision to ensure a
diversity of well maintained housing.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon completion of the final scope of work the association will be requesting the Council conduct a
Public Hearing to establish the Sunset Ridge HIA and impose fees. The association anticipates this
will occur in March.
Attachments: Ehlers’s draft Housing Improvement Area Project Costs
Photos of siding and windows
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
Housing Improvement Area - Sunset Ridge
$5,270,000 Taxable GO Revenue Bonds, Series 2009
Project Costs
20 Years
Project Costs 4,775,500$
Underwriters Discount 63,240$
Cost of Issuance 48,000$
Rounding 822$
Capitalized Interest 350,560$
Soft Costs 30,378$
Total Loan Amount 5,268,500$
Term (years)20
Average Coupon 6.6200%
Average Annual Debt Service $482,717
Required Coverage (105%) $506,853
Total Units 240
Cost/Unit - Annual (Average)$2,111.89
Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average)$175.99
Average Assessment - Per/Unit 21,952.08$
Breakdown of Soft Costs
City Admin Fee 23,878
Legal Fees 3,500
Bond Counsel 0 Included in COI Above
Financial Advisor 0 Included in COI Above
Inspecting Arch Fee 3,000
TOTAL 30,378
10/10/2008
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 4
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 5
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 6
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 7
Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 8