Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/04/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 P.M. APRIL 14, 2008 Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 28, 2008 2. 6:35 p.m. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Work Plan (Commission present) 3. 6:55 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals (Commission present) 4. 7:15 p.m. Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs 5. 8:00 p.m. 36th Street Streetscape and Public Art 6. 8:30 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 7. Paint the Park Pilot Program 8. Proposed Redevelopment of Santorini’s Restaurant Parcel 9. Proposed Redevelopment of 3340 Republic Avenue 8:40 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: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 28, 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and City Manager to set the agenda for the Monday, April 28, 2008 Study Session. 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 Study Session on April 28. Please note that the study session will begin at 6:00 p.m. Following the Study Session will be a brief EDA meeting, the annual organizational meeting of the Board of Appeals and Equalization and then the City Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for April 28, 2008 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Monday, April 28, 2008 – 6:00 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Arts & Culture - Park & Recreation (30 minutes) Staff will provide the Council with an update on the Vision Strategic Direction of “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate”. 3. Water Tower Painting – Information Resources/Public Works (15 minutes) Staff to discuss options for the city logo and paint colors on the city’s water tower near Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Ave. 4. 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: ƒ March Financial Report – Finance ƒ First Quarter 2008 Investment Report – Finance ƒ Vegetation Ordinance Amendment – Park & Recreation 7:00 p.m. End of Study Session Meeting EDA, Board of Appeals and Equalization, and Council Meeting Due to Passover, the regularly scheduled EDA and Council meetings on April 21, 2008 have been cancelled and rescheduled to April 28, 2008, immediately following the study session. The schedule for April 28th is as follows: 7:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority 7:15 p.m. 2008 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 7:30 p.m. Regular Council Meeting Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 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: 2007 Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) Annual Report & 2008 Work Plan RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: This report summarizes the work performed by the TAC in 2007 and outlines the proposed activities of the TAC for 2008. The TAC and staff request feedback and guidance from Council regarding the reports. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Council comfortable with TAC’s 2008 Work Plan? BACKGROUND: The Telecommunications Commission officially met 5 times in 2007 and Commissioners remained involved in other ways including: • Commissioners Dworsky, Huiras & Morrow attended the March 12 Council Study Session to discuss the Telecommunications Commission annual report, a proposed fiber optic ordinance, Mr. Dworsky’s comments on the NATOA conference in Fairfax, VA and the Commission work plan for 2008. • Commissioners Dworsky, Huiras, Jacobson and Overend attended the Minnesota Association of Community Television Administrators (MACTA) spring legislative luncheon April 18 for an update on state legislation. • Commissioners Browning, Hartman and Jacobson attended the MACTA annual conference in the fall which included updates on communications technologies, federal legislation and Federal Communications Commission actions. • Chair Huiras contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission activities. • Commissioner Dworsky attended a National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) conference in Portland, OR and reported back to the Commission and shared numerous handouts with staff. School District #283 Funding Grant On May 4 the Commission recommended fully funding the District’s request for an operations grant of $35,000 and an equipment grant of $9,000 for equipment and Junior High School video club staff support. The Council approved the funding request on May 21. A School District Grant Funding Policy was proposed by Commissioner Overend and approved October 11. The policy formalizes the Commission’s past practice for the last few years. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals School District Grant Funding Policy: October 11, 2007 The Telecommunications Advisory Commission seeks to track School District franchise fee expenditures to assure a community benefit. #1. The School District annual request for franchise fees should include: • A summary of how past grant dollars have been spent • A description of new funding requested for what purpose and a timeline for the expected purchase • Quarterly programming reports including information on titles, length, and frequency of replays • An updated production equipment inventory • An updated 3 year equipment purchase plan and background information about District video production and communications technology needs and plans #2. Preference will be given for funding requests that support additional programming for the educational access channel. #3. Telecommunications Commission motions to approve School District funding should specify the expected use of the funds. For example: “X” dollars for an operations grant and “Y” dollars for equipment grant to buy “A, B, C.” TV Studio arrangement with the High School The Commission toured the upgraded High School studio and recommended a promotional brochure about the facility, which John McHugh showed the Commission on August 2. Commissioner Browning suggested a promotional video about the studio that could be run on the cable system and posted on the web site, and Commissioner Morrow suggested purchasing advertising space in the Echo (SLP SHS Student Newspaper), which John McHugh and Communications Coordinator Jamie Zwilling arranged in the fall. A studio promo page appears with other community announcement pages on TV15/96. Comcast Local Origination transition to City’s On Location The production van was transferred to the City in December, 2006 and 3 new production staff joined the City on January 2, 2007. Channel 16 operations were not disrupted in the transition and the new staff immediately began covering the same events they had covered as Comcast staff. The 10-plus year old titler was replaced in time to debut terrific-looking graphics for the Parktacular Parade in June. The new Park TV logos were shown to the Commission on October 11. Staff gave an On Location report to the Commission at each meeting. Fiber Optic Ordinance Staff provided a written report on the current state of the telecommunications industry at the October meeting, with Seattle identified as a model city. The Commission directed staff to continue to research the subject, including reviewing San Francisco’s model fiber ordinance. Park WiFi Staff provided updates at each meeting during the year. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals Bylaws amendment The Commission revised the Bylaws on May 3 to add specific holidays when meetings shouldn’t occur. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rule Making On May 3 staff gave a verbal update about the coalition of associations that are formally opposing the FCC order on video franchising. Among other things, the FCC Order requires local franchise authorities to process franchise applications filed by new telecommunications entrants within a 90 or 180 day time frame. (This has been a greater concern in areas served by Verizon and AT&T, since Qwest has not been improving their telephone system to provide video services). Legislative Issues The national cable franchising bill proposed in 2006 by Representative Joe Barton (Republican, Texas) and opposed by local governments, was not a factor in 2007. Many states discussed, passed or implemented state-wide franchising laws, mostly detrimental to local governments and community television production operations. Minnesota law At the spring MACTA Legislative luncheon, Commissioners learned about Representative Sheldon Johnson’s Qwest-supported bill, HF2351, introduced in March, 2007 that is opposed by local governments. There was no action on the bill in the spring, but the MACTA Legislative Committee is developing sample resolutions and principals to fight the bill in the 2008 Session. Comcast complaints As of the February 1 meeting there were 36 complaints, and 10 were about American Movie Classics (AMC) moving from the standard analog tier to the digital tier, which requires a converter box. The Commission reviewed Comcast complaints at each meeting, and Michelle Cutler, Comcast Senior Director of Customer Care, answered questions from the Commission on December 6. Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2007 Commissioner 2/1/07 3/12 @ Council Study Session 5/3/07 8/2/07 10/11/07 12/6/07 Total attended Ken Huiras (Chair) YES YES YES YES YES YES 6 Bruce Browning (Vice Chair) YES - YES YES YES YES 5 Rick Dworsky YES YES YES YES YES YES 6 Mary Jean Overend* YES - YES - - - 2 Dale Hartman YES - YES YES YES YES 5 Bob Jacobson - - YES YES YES YES 4 Rolf Peterson YES - YES YES YES - 4 Kirk Morrow YES YES YES YES YES - 5 *Mary Jean Overend resigned effective 8/1/07 Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: This report supports the strategic direction – SLP is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachment: Work plan: 2008 Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals 2008 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan February 21 Council Chambers ♦ Update on Park Wi Fi ♦ Fiber optic ordinance update ♦ Broadband over powerline (BPL) update ♦ Park TV & Community TV update ♦ Franchise fee audit ♦ FCC video franchise update ♦ State law update: resolution supporting MN 238 + background March Joint meeting at City Council Study Session ♦ Federal Communications Commission & Minnesota statute update May 8 Council Chambers or at High School ♦ Park WiFi update ♦ School District quarterly report ♦ School District funding for 2008 July 17 Council Chambers ♦ Review draft mid year report ♦ Fiber optic ordinance update ♦ Digital TV transition publicity ♦ Park WiFi update July 31 mid year progress report to Council October 16 Council Chambers ♦ Park WiFi update ♦ Review School District reports December 4 Council Chambers ♦ Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up ♦ Comcast customer service update ♦ Park WiFi update ♦ Set meetings for 2009 ♦ Draft Work Plan for 2009 ♦ Draft Annual Report for 2008 ♦ Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 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: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Goals. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes work performed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) in 2007 and outlines the intentions of PRAC for work to be performed in 2008. PRAC requests feedback and guidance from Council regarding both reports. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with PRAC’s work plan for 2008? BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council policy, the 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan were submitted for Council review at the March 24 study session. Comments received were as follows: Councilmember Sanger suggested the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) take more initiative to provide more environmental practices in the park system. Mayor Jacobs suggested reducing the City’s reliance on fossil-based fuel. Councilmember Paprocki suggested offering community activities at the smaller parks. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if staff could provide a report on the Recreation Center activity. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding another splash pad. The comments from the City Council’s meeting on March 24 have been shared with the PRAC chair. PRAC is working to promote more environment related issues by participating in a “clean up the creek day” on April 19. This will be promoted along with other Clean up the Park items. The commission will discuss with staff the possibility of providing activities at smaller parks. The issue typically is the lack of parking for events when they are held at smaller parks. PRAC will also discuss with staff the concept of a second splash pad and what that means in capital funding as well as on- going maintenance costs and whether we could support another splash pad with existing staff. Staff would be happy to provide a Rec Center activity report to Council Member Finkelstein, if given more specifics on what he is looking for. Mayor Jacobs suggestion on reducing our reliance on fossil-based fuel is part of what we anticipate coming out of our VISION process. Staff from several departments may be working on that in the future. The chair of PRAC will be in attendance at the April 14 City Council study session for discussion and guidance. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals VISION CONSIDERATION: The 2008 PRAC Work Plan contemplates participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process. Attachments: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Work Plan Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) 2007 Annual Report The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Purpose: This Commission shall study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and recommend to the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 a park and public recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park. 2007 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission George Foulkes, Chair Steve Hallfin, Vice Chair R. Bruce Cornwall J. Ryan Currens, School Board Representative George Hagemann Kirk Hawkinson Tom Worthington Lauren Webb-Hazlett, Student Representative Parks and Recreation Department Staff Cindy Walsh, Director Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary 2007 Highlights The following are highlights of the 2007 work performed by PRAC: City Vision Commission members served on the Sidewalks and Trails; Gathering Places; and Arts and Culture Vision Action Teams. All members reviewed recommendations and assisted when needed. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals Events Arbor day/Earth day held Saturday, April 21. 5k Run held May 6. The event was held Sunday, May 6. Members volunteered and participated in the event which raised money for the scholarship fund. Neighborhood Groups Improved ties with neighborhood groups by attending park and playground redevelopment meetings. Recreation Resources Discussed “on-call recreation” resources including staff and fees (i.e. renting canoes). Staff Appreciation Breakfast/Luncheon Hosted an annual appreciation luncheon for the Parks and Recreation staff. The luncheon was held Tuesday, October 9 in the Oak Hill Park Main Shelter. Youth Sports Association Relationship The Commission invited an association to each of their monthly meetings to discuss the association’s enrollment, fees, board structure, and inquiring on facility suggestions. Associations attending in 2007 were: CIP Projects Members reviewed and discussed Capital improvement Projects accomplished in 2007 which included Ainsworth Park Sun Shelter; Aquila Park Field Two Fence; Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Fence replacement; Junior High School Field Improvements; Lamplighter Park Trail; Louisiana Oaks Park Storage Building; Minikahda Vista Park Irrigation update; the addition of playground equipment at Oregon Park; playground equipment replacement at Bronx, Cedarhurst, Fern Hill, Knollwood Green and Sunset Parks; Aquatic Park equipment repainted; retubing of the boiler in The Rec Center; repair and sealcoat The Rec Center parking lot; trail reconstruction at Carpenter, Franklin and Walker Parks; overlay the parking lot and entrance trail at Westwood Hills Nature Center; and replaced the split rail fence at Westwood Hills Nature Center. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Steve Hallfin, Chair Kirk Hawkinson, Vice Chair R. Bruce Cornwall George Foulkes George Hagemann Tom Worthington Lauren Webb-Hazlett, Student Representative Vacant, School Board Representative 2008 Goals ¾ Athletic Association Relationships: Invite each association to their monthly meetings to continue a positive relationship. ¾ City Vision: Participate and keep updated on Vision to meet the goals. ¾ Commissions: Meet with other commissions as appropriate. ¾ Community Activities for Adults: Work with staff on offering activities for adults of all ages. ¾ Events: • 5K run: Members will work with staff to volunteer and assist with marketing of the event in May. • Movie: “Splash in Movie at the Pool” will be offered at the Aquatic Park on Friday, August 15. ¾ Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up: The members will organize a clean up of the creek and creek shores. ¾ Planning Initiatives: Commission members will actively participate in the Active Community Planning Initiative for trails and sidewalks and discussions regarding the comprehension plan. ¾ Recreation Resources: Commission will invite the Council to participate in a joint tour of Minnehaha Creek in canoes. If interest from residents arises, canoe rental may be discussed in the future. ¾ Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Members will hold an appreciation luncheon for staff. 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Work Plan Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Proposed ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 4 of the City Code concerning dogs, dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would like to discuss the rationale behind changes contained in the attached draft ordinance, answer questions and receive Council direction on whether to revise or proceed to first reading. POLICY CONSIDERATION: State law lists the minimum requirements to be imposed on the owner of a dangerous dog. State law also imposes a single requirement as a minimum for a potentially dangerous dog. Does the City Council wish to add any additional provisions for either a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog? BACKGROUND: The current City ordinance concerning dogs is not in compliance or alignment with state statutes and is cumbersome and awkward in its application to dangerous behavior by dogs. The proposed amendments focus primarily on three issues: 1. Compliance with state statute regarding “dangerous dog” procedures. 2. Add an optional section regarding registration of “potentially dangerous dogs.” 3. Clarify existing code provisions dealing with dog impoundment procedures. Minnesota law defines “dangerous dogs” and sets forth minimum requirements that a local ordinance must contain. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 345.50, a dangerous dog is any dog that has: 1. Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; 2. Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or 3. Been found to be potentially dangerous and, after the owner has noticed that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Minimum Requirements The attached draft ordinance includes a listing of the minimum requirements state law imposes on the owner of a dog that is determined to be dangerous. The draft ordinance also contains language outlining the procedure declaring a dog “dangerous” and for the determination that a dog should be destroyed. It should be noted that the “dangerous dog” determination may be appealed to the City Manager or designee and the determination that a “dangerous dog” should be destroyed is subject to an automatic hearing by the City Manager or designee. Minnesota law defines “potentially dangerous dog” and sets forth a requirement and a number of options the City can impose on potentially dangerous dogs. A potentially dangerous dog is any dog that: 1. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; 2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or 3. Has known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. The only requirement in state law for owning a potentially dangerous dog is that the owner must implant the dog with a micro chip for identification. The City can impose all or some of the same restrictions on potentially dangerous dogs that it does on dangerous dogs. As stated earlier, the minimum list of requirements imposed by state law on owners of “dangerous dogs” can be found in the draft ordinance. As outlined in the draft ordinance, the determination that a dog is potentially dangerous may be appealed to the City Manager or designee. The following table shows the number of animal calls that the police department has responded to during the past 3 years: 2005 2006 2007 Animal Call ** 547 602 446 Barking Dog 177 141 191 Animal Bite 16 18 29 Animal at Large 157 174 228 ** Includes found, injured or dead animals, nuisance calls, mistreatment of animals, and aggressive/potentially dangerous animals. Also includes some barking dogs and animals at large. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. _____-08 ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, CONCERNING DOGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Sections 4-81 through 4-89 are hereby amended by deleting and adding the language as follows: Sec. 4-81. Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to enact regulations governing dogs, dangerous dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, and to provide for dog enforcement procedures. Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council. The City Council of the City makes the following findings of fact regarding the need to regulate and license dogs: (a) The regulation of dogs is found by the City Council to be necessary in order to protect the health and safety of the community. Unrestrained and/or unlicensed dogs can expose human beings and other animals to danger; can cause damage to public and private property; can exacerbate the existing overpopulation of dogs; can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential areas and parks; and can expose human beings and other animals to unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. (b) The improper impoundment or enclosure of dogs can constitute a public health nuisance. Nuisances can be created by site, odor, noise, and sanitation problems associated with improper dog enclosures and impound facilities. (c) The regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is deemed necessary by the City in light of the threat such dogs pose to the safety of human beings and other animals in the community. Dogs deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous pose a serious risk to the health and safety of the community. (d) Procedures for determining whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous to the community are warranted. The procedures prescribed herein balance the interest in immediate public protection from dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs with reasonable due process rights of dog owners. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Sec. 4-83. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Animal Control Authority means the city police officers, community service officers, and the animal control officer. At large means when a dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord, or chain. Dangerous dog means any dog that has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Dog means any male or female of any breed of domesticated dog. Great bodily harm has the meaning given to it under Minn. Stat. §609.02, subd. 8. Own means to keep, harbor, or have control, charge, or custody of a dog. Owner means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog. Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Substantial bodily harm means bodily injury that involves a temporary or permanent but substantial disfigurement, or which causes temporary or permanent but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations. (a) License. All dogs shall be licensed in compliance with section 8-626. The license tag must be displayed on the dog when off the owner’s property. Sec. 4-81. (b) Dogs running at large. (1) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, nor the parents or guardians of any such person under 18 years of age, shall allow the dog to run at large within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance. (2) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord or chain not more than six twenty (20) feet long. (3) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence, including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non- domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person. Sec. 4-82. (c) Barking dogs. No person shall own, harbor, keep or possess any dog that by loud and frequent barking, howling or yelping causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons residing in the vicinity of the dog. Sec. 4-83. (d) Certain dogs declared a public nuisance. Every dog that runs at large, strays, trespasses or barks or causes disturbance, annoyance or noise in violation of any provision of sections paragraphs 4-81 (b) or 4-82 (c) of this section is hereby declared a public nuisance, and it is unlawful to own, harbor or keep such a dog. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (e) Removal of excrement. (1) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by that person. (2) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person. (3) The provisions of this section do not apply to the ownership or use of Seeing Eye dogs by blind persons, dogs when used by the city in connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city. (f) General duty of owners. Every owner of a dog must exercise reasonable care and take all necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property and animals from injuries or damage that might result from the dog’s behavior, regardless of whether such behavior is motivated by playfulness or ferocity. Sec. 4-84. Proceedings for destruction of certain dogs. (a) Upon sworn complaint to a judge of the county district court that any one of the following facts exist: (1) That any dog at any time has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) That any dog at any time has attacked or bitten a person outside the owner's or custodian's premises; (3) That any dog is a potentially dangerous dog, which means a dog that: a. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; b. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public property in an apparent attitude of attack; or c. Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals; (4) That any dog is a public nuisance as defined in section 4-83; (4) That any dog is running at large or violates its quarantine contrary to the provisions of this article. (b) The judge shall issue a summons directed to the owner or person having possession of the dog commanding that person to appear before the judge and to show cause why the dog should not be seized by the animal control officials or any police officer and destroyed or otherwise disposed of as authorized in this article. Any dog that is alleged to have, without provocation, attacked or bitten a person as provided in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or that otherwise is a "dangerous dog" as Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs such term is defined under M.S.A. § 347.50, or other state statutes, must be dealt with according to the procedures outlined in M.S.A. §§ 347.50--347.55, or elsewhere in state statutes; provided, however, that those statutory procedures do not apply to cats or other animals, whether domesticated or nondomesticated, except as state statutes may provide. If, after a hearing, the judge finds the facts stated in the complaint to be true, the judge may: (1) Order the dog destroyed; (2) Order the owner or custodian to remove the dog from the city; or (3) Order the owner or custodian to keep the dog confined to a designated place. (c) Upon a finding by the county district court that the owner or custodian has disobeyed a court order issued under this section, the city may impound the dog and may destroy or otherwise dispose of it as provided in this article. The provisions of this section are in addition to and supplemental to other provisions of this chapter. Costs of the proceeding specified by this section shall be assessed against the owner or custodian of the dog. Sec. 4-85. Removal of excrement. (a) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by that person. (b) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person. (c) The provisions of this section do not apply to the ownership or use of Seeing Eye dogs by blind persons, dogs when used by the city in connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city. Sec. 4-865. Animal boarding facility. The city council shall from time to time designate a place as the city animal boarding facility where suitable arrangements are made for keeping and maintaining any domesticated animals that may be seized or taken into custody by any officer of the city pursuant to this article. Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures. Sec. 4-87. (a) Impoundingment of unlicensed dogs. It is the duty of city police officers, community service officers and The city Animal Control officer Authority may to impound any dogs found in the city without a tag or found running at large, harbored or kept contrary to any provisions of this article. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 9 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Sec. 4-88. (b) Redemption of impounded dogs. Any unlicensed dog that is impounded dog shall be kept for five (5) business days by the city. The owner may be redeemed by the owner the dog within the time for redemption by payment to the city treasurer of the current dog license fee, plus a penalty of an amount set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance, and an impounding fee according to the following schedule: (1) When any one person has had a dog picked up and impounded one or more times during any consecutive 12-month period, the impounding charges shall be as set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance. (2) In addition to the charges required under subsection (1) of this section, a sum for each day, as set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance, will be charged for board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is impounded. The boarding fees may be paid on authorization of the city council to its agent, pursuant to any contract currently in effect providing for the impounding of dogs within the city and its kennels. Sec. 4-89. Disposal of unredeemed dogs. (c) Impounded dogs not reclaimed. If the owner does not reclaim the dog impounded under section 4-86 Any dog that is not claimed as provided in subsection 4-88 within five (5) business days after impounding must be disposed of according to state law, or may be adopted through a veterinarian boarding facility with which the city has contracted, or may be turned over to the county animal humane society, the dog will be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. §35.71, subd. 3. The owner will be responsible for the costs of confiscation, boarding, and destruction. Sec. 4-87. Destruction of Dogs in Certain Circumstances. (a) Certain dogs may be destroyed. Upon notice to the owner and opportunity for a hearing, a dog may be seized and destroyed in a proper and humane manner upon a finding of any of the following: (1) the dog has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) the dog is a public nuisance as defined by section 4-84(d); or (3) if the owner is in violation of quarantine under section 4-2, the dog may be seized and impounded, and destroyed at the end of the quarantine period. (b) Request for hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice that the city Animal Control Authority seeks to destroy the dog, the owner of the dog may file a Request for a Hearing on the destruction. (c) Hearing procedure. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 10 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (1) Within 30 days after receipt of the request, the City Manager or designee shall schedule and hold a hearing. (2) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer or law enforcement official are admissible without further foundation. (3) The City Manager or designee shall make a determination whether the dog shall be destroyed. The decision is final and there is no right to further administrative appeal. Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of dangerous dog by city. A city An Animal Control Authority officer or other law enforcement official shall determine that a dog is a dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that a the dog has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. (b) Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person: (1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog; (2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or (3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime. (c) Impounding a dangerous dog. Upon a declaration by the city an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is dangerous pursuant to Minn. Stat. chapter 347, the dog shall be impounded immediately if the city intends to seek the dog’s destruction pursuant to Minn. Stat. §347.56. (d) Notice of dangerous dog. Upon a determination by the city an Animal Control Authority officer or other law enforcement official that a dog is dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the city shall provide a Notice of Dangerous Dog to the owner of such dog by personally serving the owner of record or a person of suitable age at the residence of such owner. The notice shall include the following: (1) a description of the dog deemed to be dangerous; (2) the factual basis for that determination; (3) the name of the officer making the determination; (4) a description of any substantial or great bodily harm on a human being inflicted by the dog on public or private property without provocation; (5) a statement as to whether the dog’s destruction is being sought by the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. §347.56; Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 11 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (6) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under paragraph (d) of this section; (7) a statement of the criminal penalties for violating requirements pertaining to dangerous dogs; and (8) a statement informing the owner of the right to appeal the officer's determination within fourteen (14) days after the receipt of the notice along with a Request for Appeal of Dangerous Dog Designation form. (e) Dangerous dog requirements. If the city an Animal Control Authority officer does not order the destruction of the dog, the owner must do the following within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Notice of Dangerous Dog: (1) register the dog as a Dangerous Dog both in Hennepin County and in the city and renew the registration annually until the dog is deceased. The owner shall pay the fee set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance. (2) keep the dog at all times, while on the owner’s property, in a proper enclosure. (3) secure surety coverage or liability insurance as required by Minn. Stat. §347.51, subd. 2 (2), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog. (4) if the dog is outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash or chain and under the physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. (5) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City with the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number. If the microchip is not implanted by the owner, it may be implanted by the city Animal Control Authority and the owner will be responsible for all costs related to the purchase and implantation of the microchip. (6) notify the city Animal Control Authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer to a new jurisdiction within 30 days of the death or transfer and execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog’s death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom the dog has been transferred. (7) a person who owns a dangerous dog and who rents property from another where the dog will reside must disclose to the property owner prior to entering a lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will reside at the property. (8) post a clearly visible warning sign, including a warning symbol to inform children, that there is a dangerous dog on the property. (9) affix to the dog’s collar, a standard, easily identifiable tag identifying the dog as dangerous. (f) Appeal of the dangerous dog designation or destruction of dog. Within fourteen (14) days of issuance of a Notice of Dangerous Dog, the owner of the dog may request in writing a hearing on the designation or on the destruction. If no appeal is issued, the declaration stands. During the appeal period, the owner must confine the dog to a proper enclosure or if Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 12 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs not in a proper enclosure, the owner must muzzle and restrain the dog with a substantial leash or chain and keep the dog under the physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. The owner’s request for a hearing must be submitted on a Request for Hearing on Dangerous Dog Designation or Destruction form to the City Clerk along with the fee set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance. The form will be provided by the City Clerk. The form must contain the following information: (1) the full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person requesting an appeal; (2) the full name and address of all of the dog’s owners; (3) the ownership interest of the person requesting the appeal; (4) the names of any witnesses to be called at the hearing; (5) a list and copies of all exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and (6) a summary statement as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous. (g) Hearing procedure. (1) If the owner timely appeals the designation, the City Manager or designee shall schedule and hold a hearing within 30 days. The city shall mail written notice thereof to the owner requesting the hearing to the address provided on the Request and to the any person who was in the past a victim of the actions of the dog that is the subject of the hearing. (2) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer or law enforcement official are admissible without further foundation. (3) The City Manager or designee shall make written findings of fact and reach a written conclusion as to whether the dog is a dangerous dog pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or whether the dog is subject to destruction under Minn. Stat. §347.56. (4) The decision of the City Manager or designee is final without any further right of administrative appeal. An aggrieved party may obtain review thereof by petitioning the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari not more than thirty (30) days after service of the City Manager or designee’s written decision. (h) Annual review of dangerous dog designation. (1) Beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may request annually that the city review the designation by serving upon the city a written request for review that includes the full name, address and telephone numbers of the requestor, a list of the names and addresses of all owners of the dog, and a summary of the basis for the claimed change in the dog’s behavior. The owner must submit the fee as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance along with the request for review. (2) If the city Animal Control Authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has changed, the Authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation. (i) Violation of dangerous dog requirements. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 13 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (1) The owner’s failure to comply with dangerous dog requirements in this section within fourteen (14) days of the designation or failure to maintain the compliance at any time thereafter will result in immediate seizure of the dog. (2) If the owner of the dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog. (3) The dangerous dog may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of impounding and boarding fees as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance and presenting proof to the city Animal Control Authority that the dangerous dog requirements will be met. A dangerous dog not reclaimed within seven (7) days may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. §35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable for all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog. (4) If the owner has been convicted for violating dangerous dog requirements and the owner is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must be seized by the city Animal Control Authority. If the owner is convicted for the crime for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs of confining and destroying the dog. If the owner is not convicted of the crime for which the dog was seized, the dog may be reclaimed upon payment for the care and boarding of the dog. If the dog is not reclaimed within seven (7) days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. §35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable to the city Animal Control Authority for all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog. (j) Penalty. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of potentially dangerous dog by city. An city Animal Control Authority officer or other law enforcement official shall determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that a dog has: (1) when unprovoked, inflicted bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chased or approached a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. (b) Notice of potentially dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an city Animal Control Authority officer or other law enforcement official that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the city shall provide a Notice of Potentially Dangerous Dog to the owner of record or a person of suitable age at the residence of such owner. The notice shall include the following: (1) a description of the dog deemed to be potentially dangerous; Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 14 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (2) the factual basis for that determination; (3) the identity of officer who has made the determination; (4) an order that the owner have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City Animal Control Authority with the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number of the microchip implanted within fourteen (14) days of the date of service; (5) a notice that if the dog endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals again, it will be considered a dangerous dog; and (6) the criminal penalties for violation of the requirements pertaining to potentially dangerous dogs. (c) Potentially dangerous dog requirement. The owner of a potentially dangerous dog must have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the city Animal Control Authority within fourteen (14) days of the designation. (d) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure for a potentially dangerous dog shall be as set forth in Section 4-88(f) and (g) relating to dangerous dogs. (e) Penalty. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. Sec. 4-90. Complaint procedures. Any person may file a complaint of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog as defined in this chapter with the city Animal Control Authority. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after its publication. First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ________, 2008. City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 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: 36th Street Streetscape and Public Art. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: To provide the City Council a preview of the W. 36th Street public art and the streetscape plans prior to assist us in finalizing this information prior to requesting formal approval. BACKGROUND: 36th Street Streetscape The City has been working with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. on the streetscape plan for 36th Street. Mike McGarvey, ASLA, of SRF has participated in the public art selection and worked closely with Marjorie Pitz to develop the streetscape plans. SRF is now working on final design and construction plans for the interim streetscape plan; construction is planned for this summer and includes streetscape only (no roadway changes). The City received a grant from the Metropolitan Council to construct some of the improvements related to improving pedestrian walk ways. Staff and SRF will present streetscape plans to the Council at this meeting. 36th Street Art Projects City staff has been working with two artists to design art into the 36th Street corridor from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100. When staff started working on redeveloping the 36th Street corridor, we wanted to convert the industrial area to a vibrant place that attracts people. Marjorie Pitz is the artist that was chosen to work with SRF Consulting Inc. to design art along the streetscape. Marjorie has proposed a conceptual theme of “people on the street” by adding art that is human in form and whimsical. The intent is to have the area come alive with activity. She is adding people to benches, bollards, and planter walls. The benches, bollards and wall panels will be made of cast stone. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: 36th Street Streetscape and Public Art Three seating areas (2 on the north side and 1 on the south side) have been designed that will serve as a gathering place along the sidewalk. (Representative models will be present at the meeting) At this time, these seating areas are planned with the idea that more could be added as the remaining portion of 36th Street businesses redevelop. A circular wall will define the seating area, provide a sense of enclosure, and buffer people from street traffic. Two art benches within the circular space will serve as sculptural seating. Bollards will me made of cast stone in a design that harmonizes with the benches. The planter walls with these benches will have bas relief cast stone wall panels mounted on them that sculpturally represent people joyfully talking. City staff will be present at the meeting to further explain the art and provide examples of what it will look like and where it will be placed. Art piece at the corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue City staff has been working with Randy Walker on design development plans for the “Dream Elevator” to be located at the corner of 36th Street and Wooddale. While Randy has completed the design/development phase of his contract, the City is not ready to construct the art piece. The City does not currently own the property on the corner where we were proposing to place the art. Since the current owner, Rottlund Homes is planning to sell the property rather than develop it, we need to work with the future owner to design the site to accommodate the art piece. We are also planning to receive money from the new owner/developer to help provide money to fund the art piece. When the property is sold, staff will work with the new owner to develop the corner of 36th and Wooddale to accommodate the art. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: We have received funding for public art from the developers of Village in the Park I and Hoigaard Village totaling approximately $135,000. When more specific art costs are proposed, staff will work to identify additional funding sources if needed. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Council adopted two Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions that directly relate to 36th Street and its makeover. Provision of public art meets the Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.” In addition, the intent of improving 36th Street is to enhance the pedestrian experience and better connect destinations within the community. The strategic direction of “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” is addressed in this effort. Attachments: None Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications (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: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Paint the Park Pilot Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Study Session report only. No action required at this time. Staff will be bringing a resolution to the City Council at an upcoming Council meeting authorizing implementation of the pilot program. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Would the Council like to consider a pilot program for neighborhood art based on the painting of selected intersections within the community? BACKGROUND: Paint the Park would be based on successful programs for intersection painting in the Minnesota cities of Rochester and St. Paul. Each has initiated a pilot effort to provide public art within the intersection of two low-volume streets. To date, there has been one intersection painted in Rochester and three in St. Paul. Intersection painting is somewhat common in Portland, Oregon; it is from Portland that the idea originated in St. Paul and Rochester. Attached are examples of intersection painting from St. Paul and Rochester. St. Paul’s program has been successfully driven by neighborhood residents who wished to see the intersection art in their neighborhood. Involvement from immediate neighbors near the artwork along with surrounding residents within the neighborhood boundaries and neighborhood association made the project a great community building event. Projects would be started by neighborhood groups or neighborhood associations. City Staff would only provide logistical support. The Community Liaison would be the contact person and coordinator of the program. Prior to conducting such a project in St. Louis Park, it would be required that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a framework for the pilot program. The neighborhood would be expected to follow these 10 Basic Steps to conduct a “Paint the Park” project: 1. Talk to neighbors about the program and idea of neighborhood-based art. If people are interested, work together on broader neighborhood involvement and ultimately the neighborhood association to spread the idea. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program 2. Contact the Community Liaison to confirm the intersection/areas that are eligible for painting, find out the street reconstruction/recoating schedule, and gain an understanding of other miscellaneous issues. 3. Work with your Neighborhood Association to let them know you are starting to plan a project. This will help them connect you to other neighbors that may be interested in being involved. This project should be supported by the neighborhood association before moving forward. Work with the Community Liaison if your neighborhood is not formally organized. 4. Hold gatherings with your neighbors, ideally within a two block radius. Talk about shared values, the value of public gathering spaces and neighborhood livability. Work together to design and then create your street painting. 5. Form a project team that will work to usher the entire project through completion. The project team should plan a process where as many neighbors as possible have input and involvement in the various aspects of Paint the Park. The project team will also be responsible for organizing neighborhood participation in the project and overseeing usage and maintenance of the new public place. 6. Create your intersection design! Create a design following requirements of the City of St. Louis Park which will be approved by the city. 7. Start fundraising and organizing supplies for the painting day. What can be borrowed, what must be purchased? Some funding may be available through the Neighborhood Association grant by talking to your neighborhood association. 8. Complete and submit the required documents, including a petition form with signatures from your neighbors. The Community Liaison will return a copy of the agreement if your project is approved, or contact you if they have questions about your submission. Neighbor approval would be required as follows: a. Neighbors directly adjacent to the artwork: 100% approval b. Neighbors within 750 feet of artwork: 80% approval 9. Paint the intersection! Plan a day-long event that includes a community celebration. Involve as many of the talents and skills of local residents as possible in the process of construction, installation, and during celebration events and performances. Make sure to set a rain date. 10. Look to the future. After your day of installation and celebration, your group should review its work and plan for ongoing work on a regular basis to ensure proper use and maintenance of your painting and to maintain relationships developed through the course of the project. Your group may want to create regular programming around the painted area, create new improvements around the area, etc. The city will not maintain the painted intersection. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Representatives from the Public Works Department have reviewed the Paint the Park pilot program. Traffic, Operations and Engineering provided input to minimize the aspects of the program that might result in negative reactions from the community. They also reviewed the Checklist, attached, to better understand the operational aspects of the program and any short-term traffic disruptions. The Community Liaison will be the contact person for the pilot program; however, the art design, location, and other specifics such as timing and intersection closures will be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee and the Public Works Department. The final approval to paint a pilot intersection will be granted by the Public Works Department, because the art would be proposed in the public right-of-way. Working together with Planning staff, the City Engineer will identify the low traffic intersections that would be best suited for this pilot program. The Paint the Park idea has been presented to Friends of the Arts director Margaret Rog who was very interested in the project. Ms. Rog brought the idea to the Friends of the Arts Board at the December 2007 meeting and the board was enthusiastic and supportive of the idea and interested in partnering on the project. Friends of the Arts sees Paint the Park as valuable and relevant and a great way to build communities through the arts. Since the initial discussion with Ms. Rog, Friends of the Arts has designated Jim Kelly as a liaison to the Paint the Park project. Staff included a Paint the Park booth in the January 31, 2008 Neighborhood Forum. There, information on the potential pilot program was shared with interested neighborhood representatives. Support at the neighborhood level is imperative for a successful Paint the Park pilot program; therefore, soliciting feedback from neighborhood leaders is an important step in this process. The goal is to have one or two neighborhoods pursue a “Paint the Park” project as a test or pilot project. Several neighborhood leaders expressed interest in the program at the Neighborhood Forum. The next step toward conducting the “Paint the Park” pilot program will be to review and adopt the proposal in a resolution at a future council meeting. The resolution will create specific parameters for the Paint the Park Pilot Program. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Because this program would be predominately volunteer-driven, Staff does not anticipate any financial or budgetary impacts at this time. The Community Liaison would coordinate the program. City support would be provided only through the temporary use of roadblocks and staff assistance with coordination of volunteers in cooperation with Friends of the Arts. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Council adopted two Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions that directly relate to Paint the Park. “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” is the first Strategic Direction this project addresses. Paint the Park is a neighborhood driven project that enhances community connections by bringing neighbors together to work on a shared project. Neighbors will work together from concept to completion which will help build strong community connections and involvement in their neighborhood. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program The pilot program also meets the Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.” Because only low-volume intersections would be painted, the program brings art to neighborhood areas where civic works of art would typically not be found. Attachments: Graphics: St. Paul’s “Paint the Pavement” & Rochester’s “Rneighbors” Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org St. Paul: Paint the Pavement Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 5 Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 6 Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Image courtesy of rneighbors.org Rochester: RColorful Corners Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 7 Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 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: Proposed Redevelopment of Santorini’s Restaurant Parcel. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to update the council on the proposal. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the existing billboards be removed as a condition of city participation in the MnDOT land sale? Does the proposal meet the purposes of the PUD by providing a more creative and efficient use of land and higher standards of site and building design? BACKGROUND: The Santorini’s parcel is approximately 2.8 acres located on the northwest corner of Highway 394 and Highway 169. It is currently occupied by Santorini’s restaurant, a large surface parking lot, and two billboards. The applicant is proposing to remove the restaurant and replace it with a four story extended stay Hyatt Summerfield Suites hotel with 146 rooms. The applicant is showing that the hotel could be expanded in the future to add an eight story building consisting of structured parking and additional rooms. If approved as proposed, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) would allow reduced setbacks along the north side and along the frontage road, and allow a reduction in the required amount of parking from 197 spaces to 164. An application for a PUD was submitted in October of 2007, however, it was found to be incomplete and additional information was requested. Two items being worked on include the existing billboards and purchasing adjacent land from MNDOT. The applicant intends to submit the required materials this spring, and is working for an approval by fall of 2008. Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of Santorini’s Restaurant Parcel FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The applicant petitioned MnDOT to sell approximately 10,000 square feet of land adjacent to the Santorini’s parcel on the east side. MnDOT is willing to sell the land, however, state statutes require MnDOT to sell the land to the city, and the city can sell it to applicant. While an agreement has not yet been made, the city could sell the land to the applicant for the purchase price with expenses; the city could require removal of the billboards as a condition of the land sale. VISION CONSIDERATION: Removal of the two billboards would improve the image (community aesthetics) of the city. Attachments: Site Plan Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 8) Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of Santorini's Restaurant Parcel Page 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 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: Proposed Redevelopment of 3340 Republic Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to update the council on the proposal. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the city vacate a portion of the 1st Street right-of-way? BACKGROUND: Greg Anderson Builders purchased the property at 3340 Republic Ave with the intent of removing the existing office building and constructing a new 20,000 square foot office building. The building will be similar in appearance to the office building he recently constructed on the adjacent parcel to the west, except the proposed building will be two stories on the Walker Street side, and one story on the Republic Ave. side. The second story is made possible due to the existing grade change between Republic Ave and Walker Street. As shown on the attached site plan, Greg Anderson will bury the utilities and construct a sidewalk along Republic Ave. The building will front on the Walker Street side, and parking will be accessed from both Walker Street and Republic Ave. As part of the redevelopment, Greg Anderson is asking for the south half of the 1st Street NW right- of-way to be vacated. The right-of-way is located between Republic Ave and Walker Street. The right-of-way contains a storm water line and a sanitary sewer line, but it has not been improved with a road. A road was not constructed due to its close proximity to the Republic and Walker intersection, and because of the 20 foot grade change. Public works has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the vacation with the condition that a drainage and utility easement be recorded over the existing utilities. The entire right-of-way is not being vacated because the owner Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of 3340 Republic Avenue of the property (Reddy Rents) to the north asked that the north half not be vacated. As shown on the attached site plan, Reddy Rents currently uses the north half of the right-of-way to provide driveway access to their property. The EDA approved a redevelopment contract to assist Anderson Builders with this project. The original proposed development plan anticipated vacating the entire 1st Street r.o.w. The current site plan moves the proposed building to the south to Walker Street and shifts the parking lot from Walker Street to Republic Avenue. The size and value of the proposed building is essentially the same as originally proposed. Street vacations require a public hearing before the City Council. The public hearing for the application to vacate a portion of 1st Street NW is scheduled for the May 5, 2008 City Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Site Plan Building Elevations Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Proposed Vacation Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of 3340 Republic AvenuePage 3 Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of 3340 Republic AvenuePage 4