HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/10/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 16, 2006
7:30 PM
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. TwinWest Chamber – Minnesota Manufacturers Week Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to
move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to
approve those items remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2007 Fees
Proposed revisions to fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees
charged for programs and services called for by ordinance.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading
of an ordinance adopting fees for 2007 and set second reading
for November 6, 2006.
6b. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree
Removal/Injection, Nuisance Abatements, False Alarms, and Other
Miscellaneous Charges
This action adds any delinquent City utility charges and other fees to the
responsible party’s 2007 property taxes.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt resolution
to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and
charges.
6c. Public Hearing to consider authorizing staff to enter into agreements for the
supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to provide
management partner services for said network.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to place on
November 6, 2006 agenda consideration of Council options,
including authorizing staff to enter into agreements for the
supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network
and to provide management partner services for said network;
follow-up on remaining questions; and provide additional
community communications on project.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Permit parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Ave So - Traffic Study No.
600
This report requests that the City Council consider adopting a resolution to install
permit parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue South.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution installing permit
parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue South and “No
Parking Anytime” restrictions on the east side of Glenhurst
Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to a point 110 feet to the
north.
8b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments for awnings, signs, building materials, and
non-conformities
Case No. 06-52-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, and setting second reading for November 6,
2006.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
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.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2006
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to approve resolution authorizing services and fees paid to the City’s
Prosecuting Attorney.
4b. Motion to approve a Professional Services Agreement with ENSR, Inc. for storm
sewer inspection services.
4c. Motion approving the Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County, Three
Rivers Park District, and the City of St. Louis Park for the CSAH 5 (Minnetonka
Boulevard) Bridge Replacement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Agreement – City Project No. 2006-1200.
4d. Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 81-05 providing additional
Professional Services related to Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
Replacement, Project No. 2005-1200.
4e. Motion to approve resolution establishing 2007 employer benefits contribution.
4f. Approval of Human Rights Commission Minutes of July 18, 2006
October 16 Council Meeting Proclamation Presentation item
Mayor Jacobs recognizing
Minnesota Manufacturer's Week October 23 - October 27, 2006
Manufacturer's Week is designed to showcase Minnesota's diverse manufacturing industry
and to increase legislative and public awareness of the importance in providing high-wage,
high-skill jobs for our communities.
To recognize and promote the importance of manufacturing to the state's economy, the
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development, and the Minnesota Manufacturing Coalition are facilitating
Minnesota Manufacturer's Week.
Accepting the proclamation for Minnesota Manufacturer’s Week is
Monica Murphy, VP of Sales & Marketing for Japs Olson
(Barb Obershaw is also in attendance representing TwinWest.)
Dee Schutte
Director of Community Affairs
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka MN 55305
952-540-0234, Ext 11.
www.twinwest.com
Setting the Standard. Leading the Way.
PROCLAMATION
MINNESOTA MANUFACTURERS’ WEEK
WHEREAS, The manufacturing industry is a dynamic part of
Minnesota’s economy, and promotion of this sector’s strength, success and
high quality of life is an integral part of Minnesota’s economic
development strategy; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing provides high skill, high wage jobs
which significantly contribute to Minnesota’s high standard of living and
economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing has the largest total payroll of any
business sector in Minnesota, providing 16.8 billion in 2005 wages; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing produces $30.7 billion for the state
economy and is the largest share, 13.7 percent of our gross state product;
and
WHEREAS, Manufactured exports brought over $13.8 billion into
the Minnesota economy in 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City
Council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim that the week of
October 23 – October 27, 2006, shall be observed as Minnesota
Manufacturers’ Week.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 16th day of October, 2006.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Consent Item: 101606 – 4a – Prosecuting Attorney Contract
Page 1
4a. Motion to approve resolution authorizing services and fees paid to the City’s
Prosecuting Attorney.
BACKGROUND:
Council received a report on this item which was included in the materials provided for the
October 9, 2006 study session. The City has worked with Colich and Associates to handle
services needed as the City’s prosecuting attorney since 1986. Due to inflation and the
increasing cost associated with conducting business, Mr. Colich has requested a fee increase
from the City.
Over the years, the fees for prosecuting attorney services provided by Colich and Associates
have been as follows:
Year Hourly Rate
1986 $55.00
1992 $67.50
1999 to current $75.00
Rates Comparison and Recommendation for Fee Increase
A survey was conducted with cities in the metropolitan area to determine the average hourly fee
or annual contract rate paid to prosecuting attorneys. The survey indicates that the fee paid by
the City of St. Louis Park of $75/hour is below rates paid in other cities for prosecuting attorney
services. The average annual fee in 2006, not including out of pocket expenses, is $196,000
(survey attached).
Performance
We are pleased with the work performed by our current prosecuting attorney firm of Colich and
Associates. Chief of Police John Luse recommends renewal of the agreement for services with
this firm.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to:
• Continue contracting services for prosecuting attorney with Colich and Associates based
on the quality of the work performed and the years of service with the City.
• Fees for such services paid to Colich and Associates be increased to $100/hour, not to
exceed $200,000 per year (unless otherwise approved by City Manager based on business
needs) effective January 1, 2007.
• Terms would remain in place for 2007, 2008 and 2009, unless otherwise determined by
the City Council.
The cost for this increase has been included in the proposed 2007 budget.
Attachments: Survey of fees for prosecuting attorneys
Resolution approving rates effective 1/1/07
Contract for prosecuting services
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Consent Item: 101606 – 4a – Prosecuting Attorney Contract
Page 2
RATES FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SERVICES
2006
City Hourly Rate Annual Fee Comment
Apple Valley $265,044 + out of pocket expenses
Burnsville $110 $264,000
Brooklyn Park $238,980
Cottage Grove $131,200
Eden Prairie $240,000 + out of pocket expenses
Lakeville $182,244 + out of pocket expenses
Maple Grove $106.60
Plymouth $241,020 + out of pocket expenses
Richfield $65 $133,000
Roseville $128,400 + out of pocket expenses
Woodbury $141,000
St. Louis Park $75.00
Comment: Our 2005 annual prosecuting
attorney expenses were $147,792.
AVERAGE $196,000
Average does not include estimated costs
for cities that also pay out of pocket
expenses.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Consent Item: 101606 – 4a – Prosecuting Attorney Contract
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-163
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SERVICES AND FEES PAID TO THE
CITY’S PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has acquired the services of Mike Colich of
Colich and Associates to be the City’s prosecuting attorney;
WHEREAS, the City Council is in consensus and wishes to continue using the services
of Colich and Associates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, that:
The hourly fee paid to Mr. Colich should be increased to $100.00 per hour, effective
January 1, 2007; and
The annual rate will not exceed $200,000 unless otherwise approved by the City Manager
based on business needs; and
The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract
for services for prosecuting attorney services.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Consent Item: 101606 – 4a – Prosecuting Attorney Contract
Page 4
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK &
COLICH AND ASSOCIATES
THIS AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 2007 by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Colich and Associates, a
Minnesota corporation ("Attorney").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES AND RELATIONSHIP.
A. The Attorney shall furnish and perform prosecution legal services for the City.
B. The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City
employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities.
2. TERM.
A. The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and this Agreement
may be terminated without cause by resolution of the City Council.
B. The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney
shall give the City sixty (60) days written notice before the termination becomes
effective.
3. PAYMENT
A. Rate for services will be $100/hour for all legal services.
B. Fees for all services shall not exceed $200,000 per year effective January 1, 2007,
unless pre-approval is obtained from City Manager regarding business need for rates
to exceed the annual maximum.
C. Terms of this agreement will remain in place through 2009 unless otherwise
determined by the City Council. Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically
extended from year-to-year or extended with such modifications and adjustments as
the City and Contractor may from time-to-time mutually agree.
D. Payments for legal services provided to the City shall be made in the manner
provided by law. The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of
receipt of a statement for services rendered.
4. INSURANCE.
The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against
claims for legal malpractice.
5. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
B. Assignment. The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be
performed hereunder without the written consent of the St. Louis Park City Council.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Consent Item: 101606 – 4a – Prosecuting Attorney Contract
Page 5
C. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by the
City and the Attorney. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without
the approval in writing of the St. Louis Park City Council.
Dated:____________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY:
______________________________________
Mayor
AND
______________________________________
City Clerk
Dated:____________________________ Professional Association
BY:
_______________________________________
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4b - ENSR Professional Services Agreement
Page 1
4b. Motion to approve a Professional Services Agreement with ENSR, Inc. for storm
sewer inspection services.
BACKGROUND:
A primary focus of Public Works is to complete the development and implementation of
management systems to track and manage city infrastructure assets, such as streets, water, and
sewer systems. These systems are critical in monitoring and managing our programs, services,
and infrastructure assets. Asset inspection is the next step in the process following the initial
step of inventorying the assets. This inventory and inspection information is then placed in
management systems that allow staff to analyze, develop long term maintenance and capital
improvement plans, and report that information in an accurate and timely manner. This allows
staff to organize large amounts of data and better inform decision-makers, staff, and the public
about the condition of our infrastructure systems.
DISCUSSION:
Storm sewer system inventory and inspection is one of the last major infrastructure items
remaining to be completed. There are approximately 5,800 storm sewer manholes and catch
basins in the system that need to be inventoried and inspected to determine their structural
condition and the degree of sedimentation within the structures. With the pressing need to
complete this work, and based on the current maintenance workload of Utility Division staff, it
was determined the most effective way to complete this in a timely manner was to outsource this
work.
In July 2006, ENSR was hired to complete a pilot project to inventory the storm sewer structures
in a section of the city. The purpose of the pilot project, besides performing necessary inspection
work, was to get an accurate determination of the time, effort, and related cost required to
complete the entire project. Through August 25, 2006, ENSR has completed approximately 900
inspections. ENSR estimates that there are approximately 900 storm sewer structures that have
either been paved over (currently inaccessible) or are in high volume roads that Utility Division
staff will need to inspect. That leaves approximately 4,900 structures to outsource for
inspection.
ENSR was selected for the pilot project because their rates are highly competitive, their
familiarity with the city, and their past excellent work performance on other city projects. With
most of the pilot study complete, staff has negotiated and prepared an agreement with ENSR to
complete the remaining storm sewer structure inspections. The work completed to-date by
ENSR in the pilot project has been done in a timely and expedient manner at a cost below
industry standards for engineering inspection work.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4b - ENSR Professional Services Agreement
Page 2
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The pilot project authorized payment of $24,000. The proposal received from ENSR to complete
the remainder of the project is for an additional $66,700. The cost for inspection services,
including the pilot project, comes to a total of $90,700. Following is a summary of the estimated
costs:
Work Status
No. of
Structures
Cost / Structure
Total Cost
Inspection Completed (Pilot) ≈ 900 $18.50 $16,700
Inspection Pending (Pilot) ≈ 400 $18.50 $7,300
Inspection Pending by City ≈ 900 N/A N/A
Inspection Pending by ENSR ≈ 4,000 $18.50 $66,700
Total ≈ 5,800 $90,700
The 2006 Storm Water Utility b udget contains funding for these storm water related consultant
activities.
TERMS:
The City’s standard professional services agreement, previously prepared by the City Attorney,
is being used for this agreement. The following terms are incorporated into this agreement:
1. Work to be completed by May 31, 2007.
2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum total contract
amount of $90,700, including inspection work done in the pilot project listed above.
3. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice.
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4c - Cooperative Agreement CSAH 5 Bridge Replacement
Page 1
4c. Motion approving the Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County, Three
Rivers Park District, and the City of St. Louis Park for the CSAH 5 (Minnetonka
Boulevard) Bridge Replacement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Agreement – City Project No. 2006-1200.
BACKGROUND:
In 2001, Hennepin County submitted a request for federal funding to replace the bridge on
Minnetonka Boulevard over the Hutchinson Spur Trail (east of Aquila Avenue). The bridge was
constructed in 1960 and has been repaired many times. In 2001 substantial repairs were
conducted by the County to keep it in service. Hennepin County, in cooperation with the City of
St. Louis Park, initiated a public process in January of 2005, including a public meeting held in
March of 2005. An additional update was also provided to the Council in November of 2005.
Further meetings and contacts by Hennepin County with City staff, property owners, and other
stakeholders have also since been further conducted as needed.
The project will essentially replace the existing bridge with a concrete arch type structure,
replace the existing 44-foot driving surface, replace the existing sidewalks, and provide a
connection to the Regional Trail. Additional aesthetic features, lighting, and utility adjustments
have also been incorporated into the plans per input provided by the City.
The County has completed plans for the project and desires to commence construction on the
project as soon as possible (April of 2007). Minnetonka Boulevard will be closed to all traffic
during the course of removal of the existing bridge and subsequent new construction. However,
the County is planning for the closure to occur only during the summer months, between the last
day of school (June of 2006) and first day of school the following September. Detours (both for
Minnetonka Boulevard and the Hutch Spur Trail) will be posted accordingly.
The total estimated construction cost of the project is $1,966,976. The City’s share of the
construction cost is estimated to be $76,447, which generally comprises lighting and utility
improvements. There will also be an additional cost to the City for undergrounding the overhead
power lines and for a portion of the engineering and administrative costs. An amount of
$250,000 has been identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) to cover the
City’s share of the project costs; 2006 GO Bonds are to be utilized as the funding source.
The Agreement has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by our City Attorney, with the
exception of some minor adjustments regarding the power undergrounding. Because a final cost
estimate from Xcel Energy has not yet been received from Xcel Energy, additional language has
been inserted into the Agreement to protect the City as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Cooperative Agreement as amended by the City Attorney.
Attachment: Cooperative Agreement (supplement)
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4d - Additional Professional Services - Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station Replacement Project No. 2005-1200
Page 1
4d. Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 81-05 providing additional
Professional Services related to Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
Replacement, Project No. 2005-1200.
BACKGROUND:
This project consists of the construction of a new sanitary sewer lift station to replace the aging
station. The project will include a new station, controls, pumps and appurtenances, forcemain
rehabilitation, and an emergency generator power supply. The existing station has reached its
life expectancy. The repair parts for the existing pumps are being discontinued and will be
difficult to acquire in the future. The current station is inoperable during a power outage. This
station’s high volume use and remote location requires additional time and cost to service.
On July 14, 2005 the City entered into an agreement with Barr Engineering to provide the
following: feasibility study, design and prepare plans & specifications, and prepare bidding
documents. On December 15, 2005 the contract was amended to include evaluation of the
service area due to the significant multifamily construction in the area requiring additional
forcemain design. On June 9, 2006 three bids for the project were received; however one was
incomplete and not accepted. The lowest bid was 63% above the engineer’s estimate. From
conversation with City’s engineering design consultant, Barr Engineering, there were a number
of issues that probably contributed to the high price of the bids including:
The time of the year the bids were opened combined with contractor unavailability
The recent increased cost of pipe lining (needed for forcemain rehabilitation)
Not providing the exact depth and location of the existing forcemain
Specified construction methods outlined by the Engineer
On July 10, 2006 Council rejected the bids and directed staff to revise the plans and re-advertise
in the fall pending additional engineering and plan revisions.
ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
Staff and Barr Engineering have discussed changes to the bid package as well as a late fall letting
time with an extended project completion time that we believe will provide for more contractor
interest and result in lower construction costs. Additional services required of Barr for the
project include: getting an exact location of the existing forcemain; modification of the plans and
specifications so they are less restrictive to methods used in the construction of the lift station;
modify the project to include more bid items for appropriate portions of the project; revise the
bidding documents accordingly, and provide additional construction inspection services.
FINANCIAL:
The professional services for Contract 81-05 with Barr Engineering are as follows:
Original Contract $ 23,600
Amendment No. 1 $ 7,800
Amendment No. 2 (new) $ 28,100
Total $ 59,500
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4d - Additional Professional Services - Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station Replacement Project No. 2005-1200
Page 2
CONSTRUCTION TIMING:
The revised plans & specifications and bid package will we ready for a late fall bid letting. This
will allow for work to begin in either winter or spring of 2007. It is anticipated that the
construction would take about 3-4 months to complete.
Attachments: Proposed Amendment No. 2
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4d - Additional Professional Services - Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station Replacement Project No. 2005-1200
Page 3
AMENDMENT NO. 2
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE FORD ROAD LIFT STATION
CONTRACT NO. 81-05
THIS AMENDMENT is made on ________________________________ and between
the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, and BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY.
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for
replacement of the Ford Road Lift Station dated July 14, 2005. On December 15, 2005
Amendment No. 1 was entered into to provide for evaluation of expanded service area,
forcemain design, and barrier wall design.
2. ITEM 3 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. Subject to the modifications set forth
herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $28,100 from $31,400 to
$59,500.
3. ITEM NO. 4A: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PROJECT: The paragraph shall
be amended to also include Exhibit “C” (additional scope of services outlined in Barr
Engineering’s proposal dated September 22, 2006) attached hereto.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Reviewed for Public Works:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Jeffery W. Jacobs, Mayor Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
___________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
By_________________________________
Attest:
Its__________________________________
__________________________________
Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk By _________________________________
Its__________________________________
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 1
4e. Motion to approve resolution establishing 2007 employer benefits contribution.
BACKGROUND:
On October 9th, the Council reviewed the employer contribution for 2007 as part of the budget
discussion. The consensus of the Council was to continue to work toward the goal of equalizing
the employer contribution for benefits. This recommendation falls in line with the goal to close
the gap between groups on employer contribution. For 2007, we recommend closing the gap by
50% and, for 2008 (if budget allows) to reach the goal of equalization of employer contribution.
This report details all of our benefits planned for 2007.
Each fall, the Council determines the contribution level that St. Louis Park employees can use in
the selection of benefits. The City holds “open enrollment” information sessions every fall,
allowing employees to select benefits for the upcoming plan year. Our benefit plan offers
choices in the following areas:
• Health insurance options with traditional co-pay plans and High Deductible Plan with
VEBA savings account for eligible health expenses
• Dental insurance through Delta Dental
• Basic life coverage offered through Prudential Life
• Supplemental life insurance
• Dependent life insurance
• Long-term disability
• Flexible spending accounts allowing employees to set aside funds pre-tax for qualified
medical expenses up to $2,400, or daycare up to $5,000
• Deferred compensation - four plan options (457 plan for retirement savings pre-tax)
Medical Insurance
For many years, St. Louis Park has been a member of the LOGIS Healthcare Consortium to
group with other cities to purchase health insurance. For 2007, the LOGIS group faced a second
consecutive year of double digit increases in health insurance.
• 0% increase (2005)
• 12% increase on our premiums (2006)
• 14.5% increase on our premiums (proposed 2007)
The Employee Benefits Committee has received data through our Benefits Consultants that the
emphasis on consumer driven high deductible plans and the Health Reimbursement Arrangement
(HRA/VEBA) have been factors resulting in low claims experience for our City. St. Louis Park
is one of two cities in the LOGIS group who offer this option, which shifts much of the risk to
the employees. Thus, St. Louis Park employees were facing unwarranted steep increases in
premiums through the LOGIS group and additionally accepting more risk in the high deductible
plans. The Committee recommended requesting bids and switching health insurance carriers if
favorable rates were received.
BlueCross/BlueShield of Minnesota returned very favorable rates with an aggregate decrease in
overall premiums of approximately 12%, with a match to our current plan design. Therefore,
St. Louis Park has discontinued participation in the LOGIS Healthcare Consortium, effective
January 1, 2007, and is switching carriers from Medica to BlueCross/BlueShield.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 2
We will continue to offer health insurance to our employees as follows:
2007 Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums
(12% Aggregate Decrease for 2007)
Medica BC/BS
High 2006 2007
Single $419.72 $347.50
Emp & Spouse $896.41 $764.50
Emp & Child(ren) $846.83 $730.00
Family $1,106.22 $973.50
Elect & Essential 2006 2007
Single $383.41 $329.00
Emp & Spouse $818.84 $724.00
Emp & Child(ren) $773.54 $691.00
Family $1,010.99 $921.00
High Deductible 2006 2007 Deductible
Single $276.26 $241.50 $2500
Emp & Spouse $590.03 $531.00 $5000
Emp & Child(ren) $557.39 $506.50 $5000
Family $728.12 $675.50 $5000
A Refresher on VEBAs
The IRS created VEBA products to allow plans to set aside tax free dollars to fund medical
expenses, usually coordinated with a high deductible health plan. A VEBA is a Voluntary
Employee Beneficiary Association, a tax exempt trust 501(c)(9) and MN Statutes 352.98, which
is a funding mechanism used with a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). Funds placed
in a VEBA can be used by the employee for qualified medical expenses.
Funds from the employee’s monthly employer contribution will be placed in a VEBA trust in an
individual’s name to use to cover the deductible expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with
the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. The advantage to a VEBA is that
funds are set aside and used tax free for qualified medical expenses. The VEBA stays with an
individual even after they leave employment and can be used to continue to pay for qualified
medical expenses.
In 2006, Medica required us to change our VEBA funding from $2,500 per year for all
employees to 50% of the deductible. This reduced the VEBA contribution for employees with
single coverage to $1,250 per year. With the change to Blue Cross/Blue Shield in 2007, we are
free to revert back to equal funding for all employees at $2,500 per year.
Other Benefits and Changes
Below is a summary of other changes in benefits for 2007:
Dental: We are a member of an alliance of four cities who bid dental rates together. 2007 will
be the second year of a two-year bid. We were pleased that there will continue to be no changes
in the plan design and a renewal rate decrease of 0.25% (last year we received a 1.5%
decrease). Dental is a voluntary program for our employees.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 3
2007 Monthly Dental Rates with Delta Dental
(0.25% Decrease)
2005 2006
Single $36.27 $36.16
Family $82.46 $82.25
Life: As a result of moving away from LOGIS, we were required to secure life insurance
coverage for 2007. We are pleased that we can continue to provide insurance through Prudential
Life with no rate increase, and a two year rate guarantee. In addition, we are able to offer
additional supplemental and dependent life options to our employees with a higher guaranteed
coverage amount. This increased flexibility in our life insurance options will be a benefit to our
employees. All employees receive a basic amount of life insurance and supplemental/dependent
life is a voluntary benefit.
Long Term Disability (LTD): LTD is a voluntary selection for our non-exempt employees and is
provided to our exempt employees. Last year, we banded together with other metro area cities to
form an alliance to find premium savings in a group bid. 2007 will be the second year in our
three-year rate freeze, resulting in no rate increase for 2007.
Deferred Compensation: The city offers four deferred compensation programs (457 plans).
Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to save and invest today for
retirement. Federal and (in most cases) state income taxes are deferred until your assets are
withdrawn, usually during retirement when you may be in a lower tax bracket. This is a
voluntary program for employees. There is no change for 2007.
Recommendation for 2007 Employer Contribution
Last year, St. Louis Park undertook a large study of our benefits compared to our market (metro
suburbs with population of at least 25,000). The results of the study showed our non-exempt
employees falling behind market. To alleviate this problem, it was agreed that the disparity
between exempt and non-exempt employer contributions would be gradually eliminated. The
gap between these two groups has been decreasing over the past two years with additional funds
being allocated to non-exempt employees who select the high deductible/VEBA health plan.
The large decrease in our health insurance premiums for 2007 provides us with an opportunity to
further reduce the gap between exempt and non-exempt employer contributions.
We are recommending a $0 increase (remain at $715/month) to the monthly employer
contribution for exempt, and non-exempt employees who participate in the High Deductible
plan. For non-exempt employees, we recommend a $30 increase (from $660 to $690/month).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 4
2007 Recommended Employer Contribution
Recommended
2006 2007
Exempt employees (not eligible for overtime)
All plans $715/mo $715/mo.
Non-exempt employees (overtime eligible)
High and Elect/Essential plan $660/mo. $690/mo.
Preferred Gold/AWARE PPO
Non-exempt employees selecting the
High Deductible with a VEBA $715/mo. $715/mo
Budget
Funding for the program described above is included in the 2007 proposed budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution setting benefit levels effective January 1,
2007.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 06-164
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
2007 EMPLOYER BENEFITS CONTRIBUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective
means for providing employee group benefits, and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year, and,
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents
as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
1. Effective January 1, 2007, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union non-exempt employees working at least 30 hours per week, be set at $690 per
month.
2. Effective January 1, 2007, non-union non-exempt employees working at least 30 hours
per week who elect to participate in the $2,500 Deductible plan will receive an additional
$25 per month (for a total of $715 per month). The additional funds are to assist non-
exempt employees in funding the VEBA account for the high deductible plan.
3. Effective January 1, 2007, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union exempt employees working at least 30 hours per week, be set at $715 per
month.
4. Effective January 1, 2007, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars for non-union
employees (classified as .5 FTE) working 20 through 29 hours per week shall be set at
50% of the exempt or non-exempt full time employee monthly contribution level, and for
non-exempt this shall also include 50% of #2 above.
5. The City will continue to provide, at no cost to exempt employees, term-life insurance at
one and one-half times the annual salary and a long-term disability plan or cost
equivalent as plan allows.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4e - 2007 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 6
6. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of
any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit to the
insurer under an approved contract the employee’s or officer’s share of any such
premium. The VEBA contribution is set to be within the employer contribution and is
determined by the employer and plan constraints.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4f - Human Rights Commission Minutes Of July 18, 2006
Page 1
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – July 18, 2006
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Maaraba called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Commissioners: Matthew Armbrecht, Karmit Bulman, Ahmed Maaraba, Joseph Polach, Shelley
Taylor and Jason Van Buren.
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lieutenant Dreier
Guests: Judy Reiner, West Metro Liaison to the League of MN Human Rights Commissions;
Sandy Johnson, Volunteer and resident; Isabelle Garcia, applicant for Comsn; and, Anne Hyman
A. Introductions and welcome to any guests attending
B. Approval of agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of May Commission meeting minutes draft 2 and June notes (There
was no quorum in June.)
Ms. McDonell indicated the May minutes had been redrafted and a second, longer
version was before the Commission for approval. The Commission discussed the reasons
for the revision of the minutes and felt the inclusion of more information was acceptable.
Ms. Taylor asked for another perspective regarding Highway 7? Lt. Dreier replied traffic
is enforced anyplace in St. Louis Park and always has been and didn’t feel Highway 7
was disproportionate.
The minutes of May 15, 2006 were approved as presented.
The notes of June 20, 2006 were approved as presented.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner & staff reports (limited to quick updates of 5 minutes or
less on any topic of interest to the commission.)
Ms. McDonell reported:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4f - Human Rights Commission Minutes Of July 18, 2006
Page 2
• The State League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions conference is
September 30th. The Commission budget will pay for Commissioners to
attend. The topic is: Human Rights Challenge of Immigration.
• Bookmark in the Park handout from the Mayor
• One of the Councilmember’s has the idea of doing a diversity picnic
• She had submitted her resignation and would be taking employment with a
non-profit, Labor Management Healthcare Coalition of the Upper Midwest.
In the interim Lori Vail and Nancy Gohman will support the commission. She
would be here through the forum.
B. Committee Reports – Progress since the last meeting
Connecting and supporting minority communities (Matt, Jason, Shelley, Mindy,
Ahmed & Karmit.) – See Old Business
Community and youth education (Kristi, Greg, Joe, Mike & Ahmed)
Ms. McDonell indicated she had received one or two applications for student
positions on the Commission. The committee should schedule a meeting.
II. Old Business
A. Finalize plans for the July 25th meeting with Somali residents.
Review the forum outline & report on the July 12 planning meeting
Facilitator training/reminder of Commissioner role that evening–Sandy Johnson
Discuss any further efforts needed to get the word out.
Ms. Johnson stated she would be supporting the Commission with the forum. She
was involved with Vision St. Louis Park and a Diversity Sub Committee resulted
from that. She asked commissioners to serve on that committee. Contact Ellen
Lowry, the ESL Coordinator for further information. A meeting was held last
week to develop an outline for the forum and she reviewed this and discussed how
the forum would be organized and the roles of the Commissioners and City staff.
They wanted to provide a very welcoming environment.
Ms. McDonell noted there would be instructions provided in Somali, and there
should be many bi-lingual people for the tables.
Ms. Bulman indicated she would contact some of the Somali guests from past
meetings to see if they would share their experiences.
Ms. Johnson stated there may be easy answers to some of the questions brought
up, but there may be some that do not have easy answers. Cards will be provided
for people to fill out to get a response on their questions, within 30-60 days.
Ms. McDonell noted Commissioners could respond with affirmation that they will
work on issues brought up at the forum. There will also be other good resources
there to help. She would have a handout with important phone numbers. They
will not promise solutions, but want to listen and provide information and
determine the next step. Inspections staff would be in attendance, as well as City
Council Members, the City Manger and Deputy Manager, and members of the
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 4f - Human Rights Commission Minutes Of July 18, 2006
Page 3
Police Department and Advisory Commission. Representatives from the JCA
would also attend. They were unsure of the number of residents that would attend.
Ms. Johnson and the Commission discussed the role of the recording position and
its importance. It was suggested that City staff take the role of recorder if a
resident at the table did not volunteer.
Ms. Bulman suggested signage be put up for people to find the location. Ms.
McDonell replied she would direct people to the West parking lot to enter at the
rotunda.
Ms. Bulman indicated the babysitters were concerned about keeping the kids
busy. Ms. McDonell responded she would contact the Park and Rec. staff to get
play equipment. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer provided an activity book with games.
She also provided a list of rules. They would not be providing babysitting for
children less than four years of age.
Ms. Johnson referenced a positive article in the Star Tribune about the St. Louis
Park Police youth basketball program at Louisiana Court.
Ms. McDonell stated they were relying on the Somali Action to invite people to
the forum and asked Commissioners to spread the word about the forum as well.
Ms. Reiner noted that a member of the Hopkins Civil Rights Commission felt it
was his knowledge that St. Louis Park and Hopkins Police Departments were
looked upon as great to work with.
IV. New Business - None
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
• Recap on Forum
• Ways to get involved with schools
• Start planning advertising for annual Human Rights Award
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 5a - Appointment To Boards And Commissions
Page 1
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions
Recommended
Action:
Motion to appoint citizen representative to the Police Advisory
Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council interviewed an applicant for the Police Advisory Commission on August 21,
2006. At the time of the interview, there was only one vacancy on the PAC. Since that time,
Commissioner Karen Bream has resigned creating an additional vacancy. There are two
commissioner openings on the Police Advisory Commission.
Adult Commissioner Vacancies:
PAC (vacated by Molly Altorfer) Vacancy, expires December 31, 2007
PAC (vacated by Karen Bream) Vacancy expires December 31, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council make a motion to appoint a citizen representative to the
Police Advisory Commission with a term expiration of December 31, 2007.
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 1
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2007 Fees
Proposed revisions to fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees
charged for programs and services called for by ordinance.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of an
ordinance adopting fees for 2007 and set second reading for
November 6, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Finance Director has worked with
individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the
attached ordinance.
A notice was published informing interested persons of our intent to consider fees. A separate
public hearing will be held to consider rates for water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste
collection utilities.
Notable Revisions to Fees
Liquor License Fees
Store Manager Investigation
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $250
Explanation:
Analysis of the cost of investigating and licensing managers of establishments that provide liquor
sales showed that our previous fee was too high. Reducing the fee will more closely match the
cost of providing the service.
Permits
Installation of Traffic Signal per Location Fee
Current Proposed
New Fee – removed from regular $150 flat permit fee
electrical fee schedule
Explanation:
This fee would be paid for by electrical contractors installing signal lights for the City, County or
State. The current fee is calculated as a percentage of valuation of the signal system and is not
an accurate method of determining a permit cost. The proposed fee accurately reflects the cost of
inspections and administrative functions in relation to the type of electrical work being done.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 2
Business Licenses
Annual Residential Rental License
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Multi Family: $125 per building and $140 per building and
$7 per unit $8.50 per unit
One & Two Family
Homes: $75 per unit $80 per unit
Duplex –
both units licensed: $125 $130
Explanation:
Additional fee revenue to compensate for increasing staff time devoted to the inspection of rental
properties, reducing inspection interval from three years to two years as specified in City Code.
An annual revenue increase of approximately $16,000 will result from these proposed license fee
changes.
Planning and Zoning Fees
Each of the fees listed generally benefit only the receiving party.
Final Plat
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$250 $300
Exempt and Administrative Subdivision
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$250 $300
Explanation:
Analysis of the amount of staff time required to complete these processes indicates that a fee
increase is warranted at this time to cover our costs.
Special Permits – Minor Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $750
Explanation:
Similar to Conditional Use Permits, which was changed last year, Minor Amendments for
Special Permits require coordination among internal city departments, as well as a formal public
hearing process, with reports and presentations for the Planning Commission and City Council.
Combined with typically two or more meetings with the applicant, an increase in the fees from
$500 to $750 likely will still not cover all of the costs involved in some cases.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 3
Planned Unit Developments and Major Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Final $750 $1,000
Preliminary and
Final Combined $1,500 $2,250
Explanation:
Planned Unit Developments have increased in complexity in terms of City review. Final and
combined PUDs represent significant land use rights conferred to a property owner, and
therefore require careful scrutiny and analysis. In addition there are a significant amount of
development meetings, and one or more neighborhood meetings, and typically a Council Study
Session in addition to the formal Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Proposed Minor Wording Adjustments
Administrative Penalties – Subsequent Violations
Staff suggests replacing the word “season” with “calendar year.” There are many violations
other than snow shoveling for which the city levies administrative penalties. This will ease the
amount of staff time required in managing these fees.
Tree Replacement – cash in lieu of replacement trees
Staff suggests replacing the word “caliber” with “caliper.” Caliber is an inside measurement of a
pipe or gun barrel while caliper is a tool for measuring outside diameter.
NEXT STEPS:
The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for November 6th. If approved, the fee
increases listed above will be effective January 1, 2007.
Staff will be presenting proposed new water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates to the
City Council in December. These rates have been determined to not be fees, as established by
state statute requirements, so staff will propose removing them from this fee schedule and
adopting them by resolution on an annual basis. Because they are currently required to by our
ordinance to be in the fee schedule, we will go through another public hearing and first and
second reading in order to amend that ordinance.
Attachments: Ordinance Setting 2007 Fees
Prepared By: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO. 2319-06
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED
FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2007
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2007.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 17, 2005 by Ordinance # 2301-05 which
is hereby rescinded.
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1-14 Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Season
Calendar Year
add $10 to previous fine
CHAPTER 3: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
3-59 Liquor License
Non-intoxicating on-sale $750
Non-intoxicating off-sale $100
Intoxicating on-sale $7,500
Sunday Sale $200
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Wine $2,000
Intoxicating off-sale $200
Temporary (On & Off sale) $50/day
New License Investigation $1,000
Store Mgr Investigation $500 $250
CHAPTER 4: ANIMALS
4-88 Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $20
2nd offense w/in year $30
3rd offense w/in year $40
4th offense w/in year $60
Boarding per day $10
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 5
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS & REGULATIONS
6-32, 6-67 Plan Review
Building Permits
Repetitive building
65% of Permit Fee
25% of Permit Fee for duplicate structure
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer and Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
6-32 Building and Fire Protection Permits
Valuation Base Fee Plus For Each Additional
(or fraction thereof)
Up to $500.00 $35.50 -
$500.01 to $2,000.00 $35.50 $2.25 $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $69.25 $14.00 $1000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $391.25 $10.10 $1000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $643.75 $7.00 $1000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $993.75 $5.60 $1000 over $100,000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 $4.75 $1000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up $5,608.75 $4.25 $1000 over $1,000,000.01
6-32 Electrical permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single family: one appliance $40
6-32 Electrical permit contd.
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
6-32 Mechanical Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $55
Install single fuel burning appliance
with piping
$55
Install, replace or repair single
mechanical appliance
$40
6-32 Plumbing Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing
fixture
$40
Water treatment
(softener or drinking system)
$15
6-32 Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace sewer or water service $40
6-32 Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 6
6-35 After Hours Inspections $50 per hour (minimum 2 hrs)
6-69 Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed
after building occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft.
above 200,000 sq. ft.
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-69 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50
6-103 Building Moving $500
6-177 Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Single Family Dwellings $195
Duplex (2 family dwellings) $275
Condominium Unit $115
All other buildings
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,001 to 200,000 sq ft
above 200,001 sq ft
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-187 Temporary Certificate of Property
Maintenance
$50
6-213
ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system
install or repair)
$125
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 7
CHAPTER 8: BUSINESS LICENSING
8-33 General License Fees
Commercial entertainment $250
Environmental emission $275
Food and Beverage
High + & large grocery store
(25,000 sq. ft. +)
High + small grocery store
(to 25,000 sq. ft.)
$1,125
$825
Class H $775
Class M $525
Class L $275
Class V – Food vending machine $15
Public Sanitary Facilities
Class I $750
Class II $400
Class III $250
Massage Therapy Establishment $275
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $125
Unit Fee $7
Rental Housing
Multiple Family Building $125 $140
Multiple Family per Unit $7 $8.50
Tobacco products & related device sales $450
Vehicle Parking facilities
Parking ramp $125
Enclosed Parking $175
Dog Kennel $125
Billboards $125 per billboard
8-33 Temporary Use Permits
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $100
Circuses, Carnival and Amusement Rides $250
Petting Zoos $50
Commercial Film Production
Application
$50
8-37 Insurance Requirements
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
8-66 Contractor
Solid Waste $175
Tree Maintenance $60
Mechanical $85
8-67 Exam Fees (Competency)
Mechanical per test $25
Renewal – 3 year Mechanical $15
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 8
8-138 Solid Waste – Vehicle Decal $15
8-163 Tree Maintenance & Removal –
Vehicle Decal
$5
8-191 Late fee 20% of license fee (minimum $25)
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license
8-192 Transfer of Ownership $50
8-258 Restaurant Smoking Area Surcharge $700
8-326 Rental Housing License
1 & 2 family rental housing $75 $80 per dwelling unit
Duplex when both units are licensed $125 $130 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family
dwelling units
$15 per unit
8-349 Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
8-428 Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $1.50
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
8-514 Temporary Food Service
3+ Days $125
1 – 3 Days $75
Prepackaged food only $35
8-572 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $50
8-602 Dog License
Dog License – 1 year $15
Dog License – 2 year $25
Dog License – 3 year $35
Penalty for no license $35
Interim License $7
8-661 Courtesy bench $35 per bench
CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENT
12-1 Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (Used equipment valued as
new)
$50 +1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of Permit Fee
12-1 Public Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-2 Private Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 9
12-131 Noise
Temporary Permit $50
CHAPTER 14: FIRE
14-103 Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
14-104 Service Fee for fully-equipped and
staffed vehicles
$440 per hour for a ladder truck
$285 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$155 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $85 per hour
CHAPTER 16: LAW ENFORCEMENT
16-34 Criminal Background Investigation
(Volunteers & Employees)
$5
16-35 Administrative fee in certain vehicle
forfeiture cases
$250
CHAPTER 18: OFFENSES & MISC PROVISIONS
18-153 False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $90
Late payment fee 10%
CHAPTER 20: PARKS AND RECREATION
20-6 Permit Fee Off-Leash Dog areas $25 St. Louis Park Resident
$50 Non-Resident
CHAPTER 21: PLANNING
21-33 Official Map Amendment $500
CHAPTER 22: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
22-33 Special pickup (refuse/recycling/yard waste) $15 each
22-34 Extra Cart
30 Gallon $40 each
60 Gallon $44 each
90 Gallon $48 each
22-35 Extra refuse stickers $2.25 quarterly
22-37 Refuse/Garbage Service Rate (includes tax)
30 Gallon $37.01 quarterly
60 Gallon $47.58 quarterly
90 Gallon $58.16 quarterly
90P (120 – 180 Gallon) $68.73 quarterly
270 Gallon $88.73 quarterly
360 Gallon $108.73 quarterly
450 Gallon $128.73 quarterly
540 Gallon $148.73 quarterly
22-37 Yard Waste Credit $3.00 quarterly
22-37 Extended absence 31% credit for the # of weeks absent (per table below)
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon
60 Gallon
90 Gallon
90+ Gallon
270 Gallon
360 Gallon
450 Gallon
540 Gallon
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 10
3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5 $4.40 $5.70 $6.90 $8.20 $10.60 $13.00 $15.30 $17.70
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon
60 Gallon
90 Gallon
90+ Gallon
270 Gallon
360 Gallon
450 Gallon
540 Gallon
6 $5.30 $6.80 $8.30 $9.80 $12.70 $15.60 $18.40 $21.30
7 $6.20 $7.90 $9.70 $11.50 $14.80 $18.10 $21.50 $24.80
8 $7.10 $9.10 $11.10 $13.10 $16.90 $20.70 $24.60 $28.40
9 $7.90 $10.20 $12.50 $14.80 $19.00 $23.30 $27.60 $31.90
10 $8.80 $11.30 $13.90 $16.40 $21.20 $25.90 $30.70 $35.50
11 $9.70 $12.50 $15.30 $18.00 $23.30 $28.50 $33.80 $39.00
12 $10.60 $13.60 $16.60 $19.70 $25.40 $31.10 $36.80 $42.60
13 $11.50 $14.70 $18.00 $21.30 $27.50 $33.70 $39.90 $46.10
14 $12.40 $15.90 $19.40 $22.90 $29.60 $36.30 $43.00 $49.70
15 $13.20 $17.00 $20.80 $24.60 $31.70 $38.90 $46.00 $53.20
16 $14.10 $18.20 $22.20 $26.20 $33.90 $41.50 $49.10 $56.70
17 $15.00 $19.30 $23.60 $27.90 $36.00 $44.10 $52.20 $60.30
18 $15.90 $20.40 $25.00 $29.50 $38.10 $46.70 $55.30 $63.80
19 $16.80 $21.60 $26.40 $31.10 $40.20 $49.30 $58.30 $67.40
20 $17.70 $22.70 $27.70 $32.80 $42.30 $51.90 $61.40 $70.90
21 $18.50 $23.80 $29.10 $34.40 $44.40 $54.40 $64.50 $74.50
22 $19.40 $25.00 $30.50 $36.10 $46.50 $57.00 $67.50 $78.00
23 $20.30 $26.10 $31.90 $37.70 $48.70 $59.60 $70.60 $81.60
24 $21.20 $27.20 $33.30 $39.30 $50.80 $62.20 $73.70 $85.10
25 $22.10 $28.40 $34.70 $41.00 $52.90 $64.80 $76.70 $88.70
26 $22.90 $29.50 $36.10 $42.60 $55.00 $67.40 $79.80 $92.20
22-37 Late payment penalty 10% of amount due (quarterly)
CHAPTER 24: STREETS, SIDEWALKS & OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
24-92 Record deed transfer with Hennepin
County
$120 + Recording cost
24-122 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300
24-153 Installation/repair of sidewalk, curb
cut or curb and gutter
$100 per 100 linear feet (minimum $100)
24-251 Work in Public Right of Way
Hole in Roadway/Blvd $100 each
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Trenching in Boulevard
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 11
CHAPTER 26: SUBDIVISIONS
26-42 Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $500 plus $50 per lot
Final Plat $250 $300
Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot
Exempt and Admin Subdivision $250 $300
26-158 Subdivision Dedication Fee
Park Land Dedication Fee
Multifamily dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Commercial/Industrial properties 5 percent of current market value of the unimproved
land as determined by the city assessor
Trails
$225 per residential dwelling unit
CHAPTER 30: TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
30-44 Permit to exceed vehicle weight
limitations
$30 each
30-158 Snowfall parking permit
No off-street parking available No charge
Off street parking available $125
Caregiver parking $25
30-160 Permit parking No charge
CHAPTER 32: UTILITIES
32-31 Water rates $0.90 per 100 cubic feet (see table below)
100 cubic feet = 750 gallons = 1 unit
Meter Size Code Meter Size
(in inches)
Monthly Quarterly
1 5/8 $ 3.63 $ 5.60
2 ¾ 4.08 6.80
3 1 5.27 9.96
4 1 ½ 7.77 16.82
5 2 11.27 26.04
6 3 19.82 49.03
7 4 33.42 79.38
9 6 64.58 155.56
32-98 Sewer service rates $1.7023 per 100 cubic feet of water
consumption during the winter quarter
Sewer service charge – monthly $ 3.55
Sewer service charge – quarterly $10.65
32-142 Stormwater Utility
Residential Equivalent Factor (REF)
2006 = $9.50 REF
CHAPTER 36: ZONING
36-33 Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $750
36-33 Variances
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 12
Residential $300
Commercial $500
36-33, 36-36 Special Permit
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $500 $750
36-34 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
36-34 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
36-34 Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
36-34 Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
36-34 Time Extension $75
36-367 Planned Unit Developments
Preliminary PUD $1,500
Final PUD $750 $1,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,000 $2,250
PUD – Major Amendment $1,000
PUD – Minor Amendment $750
36-80 Erosion Control Plan
Application and Review $150
36-81 Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $105 per caliber caliper inch
36-162 Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
36-339 Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
36-361 Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
36-362 Sign Permit
Installation of permanent sign $75
Installation of permanent sign w/ footing
insp.
$100
Erection of Temporary sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, construction sign
40+ ft
$30
36-364 Fence Permit
Installation $15
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6a - 2007 Fee Schedule
Page 13
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2007.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6b - Public Hearing - Assessment Of Delinquent Charges
Page 1
6b. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree Removal/Injection,
Nuisance Abatements, False Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous Charges
This action adds any delinquent City utility charges and other fees to the responsible
party’s 2007 property taxes.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt resolution to
assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and charges.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is authorized to direct the assessment of delinquent utility accounts, nuisance
abatements, false alarm fees, tree removal/injection and other miscellaneous charges against the
benefiting property after holding a public hearing.
Accounts remaining delinquent and unpaid at the close of business on November 17, 2006 will
be sent to the County for inclusion with next year’s property tax bill. This process follows the
same schedule each fall and is developed to meet Hennepin County’s deadline of November 30
for submission of the assessment rolls.
PROCESS PRIOR TO HEARING:
Each of these property owners has had a city service provided. They were then billed through
our regular invoice process. That invoice is now past due, so our preferred method of collecting
those past due amounts is through certification to the property taxes for next year. In advance of
the public hearing date, individual letters are mailed to property owners advising them of the
assessment and their right to be heard before Council. This year, 1374 letters were sent to
property owners, as compared to 1,407 letters last year. Balances past due as of September 22,
2006 are considered delinquent. The total delinquent at that time was $454,798. Individuals
have until Friday, November 17, 2006 to pay the outstanding amount or contact the City to make
payment arrangements.
The deadline to submit a request for a Public Hearing appearance was Wednesday, October 11th.
The City has not received any requests for a Public Hearing appearance at this time. However,
we have received one letter expressing a “formal” objection to a delinquent tree removal charge.
This gentleman is not requesting an appearance at the council hearing but submitted a written
complaint. A copy is attached for council’s review. In response to a couple items noted in this
letter, staff did approve a refund for his original tree injection charge and this property is on the
repair schedule for his sidewalk. Both items are in process, but were not completed before
receipt of the letter. Due to the circumstances surrounding this situation, staff has not approved
waiving the tree removal charge.
Each year, we have a number of residents who pay their delinquent amount before the
certification deadline, thus reducing the final amount that is certified and sent to the County.
There are several hundred property owners who do contact the City with questions about their
outstanding balance, the certification process and/or payment arrangements during October and
November.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6b - Public Hearing - Assessment Of Delinquent Charges
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
The following table reflects an updated view of the delinquent charges as of October 10th, 2005.
The amounts shown do not include interest, or the $25.00 per account administrative fee. These
numbers will continue to change as payments are received until the payment deadline of
November 17th. In December, council will be provided a final analysis of the delinquent
charges that were sent to Hennepin County for certification with a comparison to the previous
year.
Number of
Accts as of
10/10/2006
Outstanding
amt as of
10/10/2006
Utility Accounts 1096 351,249$
Tree Removal/Injection 66 50,917
Grass/Weed Cutting 29 4,057
False Alarm/Misc.18 1,800
Total 1209 408,024$
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with residents
to resolve issues they may have related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts
outstanding as of November 17th will be certified to the County for collection. After
certification, the delinquent amounts will become a lien on the individual properties.
Attachments: Resolution
Resident letter (supplement)
Prepared by: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6b - Public Hearing - Assessment Of Delinquent Charges
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-161
LEVYING ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY
ACCOUNTS, TREE REMOVAL/INJECTION, NUISANCE ABATEMENTS, FALSE
ALARM FEES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined by ordinance the rates and
charges for water, sewer and refuse services of the city and has provided for the abatement of
tree removal/injection, grass/weed cutting and other miscellaneous charges to a home or business
shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and
WHEREAS, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served
under Section 6-158, Section 6-206, Section 9-103, Section 9-110, Section 11-2004 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code and Minnesota Statutes 18.023, 18.271, 443 and 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has prepared an assessment roll setting forth an assessment
against each tract or parcel of land served by water, sewer and refuse services of the City or
charged for the costs of abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and
other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on November 17,
2006; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that said assessment roll is hereby adopted and approved, and there is hereby levied and
assessed or reassessed against each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the
amounts respectively therein abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees
and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on November 17,
2006; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said
assessment or reassessment roll to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the
assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof
enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of five point eight one percent
(5.81 %) per annum.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 1
6c. Public Hearing to consider authorizing staff to enter into agreements for the supply
and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to provide management
partner services for said network.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to place on November 6,
2006 agenda consideration of Council options, including authorizing
staff to enter into agreements for the supply and implementation of a
wireless broadband network and to provide management partner
services for said network; follow-up on remaining questions; and
provide additional community communications on project.
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
At its August 7 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to request bids
for purchase and installation of a citywide wireless Internet system. This authorization followed
21 months of study and implementation of a pilot project. Council authorized the request for bids
(RFB) because we would not completely know the cost side of the project until we received bids.
Staff also recommended that no commitment be made to a citywide project until bid costs were
known and overall financials could be re-projected with actual bid costs included.
Staff reported on August 7 that there is significant interest in this project and that cash flow
subscription rates are challenging, yet achievable. However, staff also expressed concern that
subscriber fees may be unable to cover 100% of project capital and operational costs. Staff’s best
estimate at that time was that annually, retail subscriber fees would fall approximately $55,000
short of costs. That is, over the life of the 5-year project, the deficit was estimated to be
$273,000. Total capital costs were estimated to be $4.5 million and total operational costs were
estimated to be $7.2 million. Consistent with the City’s retail model approach, this estimate
assumed no use or benefits of the citywide wireless system for public safety, public services,
education, or other community-wide purposes. While this is correctly the assumption of the retail
financial model, such a wireless network would indeed be employed for such other non-retail
purposes. The only question is whether such citywide benefits are included in the decision
making process.
The purpose of this report is to:
• For all interested parties, provide background on this project.
• Update Council with the status of the bid process, including various technologies
contemplated.
• Update Council with the status of the negotiation process with the management partner.
• Re-project the retail project financials based on results of the bid and negotiation
processes.
• Address risk mitigation factors and efforts.
• Discuss possible consideration of public safety, public service, and communitywide
benefits.
• Contemplate possible exit strategies.
• Provide comparative costs and features among alternative service providers.
• Update Council on discussions with surrounding suburbs.
• Review the invitation to the Minneapolis service provider to bid on the St. Louis Park
project.
• Based on this report, provide recommendations to the City Council.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
At its November 21, 2005* meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to
proceed with a pilot project for wireless high-speed Internet service with the intention of
subsequently establishing a citywide wireless high-speed Internet service unless the results of the
pilot study suggest that it is unadvisable to proceed further. Council’s direction to implement the
pilot project followed a year of intense study on the potential advantages and disadvantages of
wireless, including public process with residents, the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce,
businesses, and other stakeholders. That pilot project has been implemented and continues in
operation in four areas of the city. Council received detailed updates on the pilot project at its
July 10 and 17 study sessions. It took its most recent action at its August 7 meeting.
Project goals identified at the November 21 meeting focused on the following overarching and
more detailed policy questions and issues:
Fundamentally, to ask whether and how the City and Schools could play a role to ensure
access to citywide competitively priced high speed wireless Internet service.
• Evolving Perception of Internet – Becoming as Essential as Water, Sewer, Roads?
• If Essential, Can Everyone Afford It?
• DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) Internet Service Limited
• Cable Modem Internet Service Widely Available - Single Broadband Source
• Low Speed Dial-Up Internet Service Becoming Increasingly Inadequate
• Coverage / Pricing / Competition May be Suboptimal
• Chaska, Moorhead, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Cloud, Rural
Oregon, Macedonia…more…Suggests Wireless Worthy of Study
• Small Business and Resident Interest Both Anecdotally and Via Market Research
• Municipal and Educational Opportunities – Some Apparent, Most to Evolve
• Increasing Demand for Wireless Tech – Wireless Phone Numbers Exceeded Wired
Numbers in 2005
• St. Louis Park Competes – So What Can Help Us Attract and Retain Residents and
Businesses
• 200+ USA Cities Planning / Implementing Wireless – Help Prime the Market, Because…
• USA Ranks No. 12 / 16 Worldwide in High-Speed Internet Penetration Rates – Can We
Do Better?
• And, Maybe We Really Do Live in a Flat World, So What Can We Do to Stay Strong?
On July 17, staff shared several overall pilot project conclusions with Council. While it appears
much has been successful about the pilot wireless project, it is also the case that we have faced
some challenges and learned much throughout the pilot. Summary conclusions suggest:
• There are indicators of strong interest in citywide wireless Internet service, arguably
sufficient to meet subscriber projections.
• The pilot project suggests the need for strong and frequent subscriber support -- some
based on the technology, some based on the subscriber learning curve. Unplugged Cities
is prepared to commit its own staff for the help desk function should a citywide project be
approved.
• Subscribers in the pilot project have used the service in sub-optimal conditions, including
far fewer wireless radios to provide strong, reliable connectivity than would be present in
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 3
a citywide service. Especially at the outer boundaries of the pilot areas, this has caused
less reliable service for some subscribers.
• The current network vendor, Tropos, is attempting to address technical concerns raised
throughout the pilot.
• The projected cost and number of wireless access points have increased, and may vary
across vendors.
• The cost of the most successful subscriber bridge in the pilot is higher than the current
business model supports. Subscriber bridge options are increasing.
• Subscribers place importance on security, support for Macintosh computers, ease of
setup, reliability, and speed of the network.
• There is a priority placed on ensuring significant network capacity, including the addition
of fiber optic cabling.
• Pilot fatigue is real. While we still have many subscribers in the pilot, the penetration rate
is now 20%, compared to the original 25%. Virtually all subscribers who have dropped
have done so because they can no longer tolerate paying two Internet service fees. They
have also indicated a real interest in subscribing if the City commits to a decision to move
forward with the additional wireless infrastructure for a dependable service.
• Effective and on-going marketing of the wireless service will be vital to success of any
citywide program. The other critical side of marketing is delivering on what is marketed
and being clear on what wireless can and cannot deliver. Different people have different
expectations.
• The wireless network industry has matured even since the pilot was approved last
November. Tropos is a leading vendor of wireless networks. Additional vendors have
also made strides in the market. There are more alternatives to explore to compare
performance and costs of wireless access points and bridges.
• Completion of the fiber optic backbone is a significant portion of the capital investment,
projected at over $1 million.
At its July 17 study session, staff presented several options to the City Council:
1. Council may direct that the pilot wireless service be shut down, with appropriate notice to
subscribers and the community.
2. Council may continue the pilot without additional action while waiting for changes in the
wireless environment (this has on-going pilot service operational costs).
3. The City Council could direct staff to move forward on implementation of a citywide
wireless service without further deliberations.
Given the above described project conclusions – especially interest in the project as well as some
unknown costs – staff recommended that Council exercise a fourth option: take the prudent step
of gathering information on current costs and options for wireless networks. Thus, it was
recommended Council authorize staff to develop and issue a Request for Bids for a citywide
wireless network. Council took this action at its August 7 meeting. This required an extension of
the pilot through October. Financing the continued operation of the pilot as well as developing
citywide bid specifications and pre-bid qualifications, conducting site visits, and developing final
recommendations added approximately $50,000 to the project. This continued due diligence was
intended to both keep us moving forward and mitigate some financial risks by creating more
known factors in the business and technical models.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 4
BID PROCESS RESULTS:
The following bids were received by the published bid deadline of 1:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 22. 2006. Staff then reviewed the bids, and provided an updated bid tabulation to
vendors. This included a correction which changed the apparent low bidder. As evident from
various bids, each vendor took a somewhat different approach to the project:
Bidder Wireless Network Fiber Network/CPE (1,000)TOTAL
Backhaul
ARINC (Proxim)1,144,231.00 483,300.00 86,000.00 1,713,531.00
Onvoy (Nortel)1,652,398.17 647,601.79 100,000.00 2,399,999.96
BIG Wireless (Tropos)1,578,705.00 1,118,444.00 99,000.00 2,796,149.00
Johnson Controls (RoamAD)1,378,600.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,478,600.00
Johnson Controls (Strix)1,498,500.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,598,500.00
Johnson Controls (Cisco)1,756,500.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,856,500.00
The projected total bid cost based on staff projections was $2,900,000.00 and bidders were
informed at the September 7 pre-bid meeting that more competitively priced bids that met project
specifications would be viewed more positively by the City Council.
Bidders were informed that staff would review the packages to determine the lowest responsible
bid based on price and specifications – that is, the lowest priced bid that met project
specifications as outlined in the RFB. Per the City Attorney’s counsel, staff followed up with the
apparent lowest responsible bidder, ARINC, first to determine if it met project specifications.
This follow-up included extensive review of the bid, follow-up questions with the bidder, and a
site visit to the bidder and sample installed sites. A similar process would be followed with the
subsequent bidders based on bid price should the apparent lowest responsible bidder need to be
disqualified based on its follow-up.
City and consultant staff visited ARINC and some of its installed sites during the week of
October 2. Staff also reviewed sites of Proxim, the wireless hardware vendor partnering with
ARINC. Meetings with Proxim, ARINC and its installed sites yielded very useful information
and the opportunity for verification of the bid items as part of the City’s due diligence. This
review became all the more important given the difference in price between ARINC’s bid and
other bids, as well as the projected bid cost. Staff continues its analysis of the bid provided by
ARINC to determine if it meets or exceeds project requirements as provided in the RFB.
ARINC’s approach is innovative in many ways. Here is a summary of highlights:
• Over 9 miles of additional fiber optic network infrastructure is part of this bid. At the
City’s option, additional fiber network segments could be installed to provide capacity
beyond that needed to support the wireless service, particularly in commercial and
industrial areas.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 5
• Wireless network costs are managed primarily through the integration of solar panel
technology with wireless radios. Solar power technology itself is proven; its application
to powering a wireless access points is new. Fortunately, the same manufacturer being
proposed (SunWize) provides solar panels for many applications, including transportation
and pollution control applications in Minnesota. Solar power mitigates against reliance on
the electrical grid, especially in times of storm-related emergencies when the grid is often
most needed.
• The wireless access points are housed in a weatherproof enclosure that incorporates
needed components, including a rechargeable battery with a 5.5 day power supply (in the
event of solar panel destruction), mitigating against the project costs from energy
charges.
• The solar powered wireless access points, in conjunction with power backup at all points
along the network, provides real value for public safety and services applications as they
can continue to use the network during times of electric grid outages.
• The use of proven and currently used solar technology may be viewed as environmentally
sound stewardship, supportive of Vision St. Louis Park.
• Solar power technology may have future ancillary applications, including combination
backup with wind energy and availability to power other facilities (e.g., traffic signals
and street lights).
• Some equipment purchased during the pilot project can be re-deployed to support
wireless subscribers in locations such as MDU’s and wireless hot spots. Such re-
deployment can potentially help provide coverage to the few larger MDU’s with greater
than 300 units (a total of approximately 1,600 residences), where arrangements for
internal radio installations need to be approved by those property owners. All but these
approximately 1,600 residences in MDU’s will be covered with typical external radios
around buildings.
• The weatherproof enclosures can be upgraded to include newer wireless technologies as
they evolve and be relocated as needed, mitigating against technological obsolescence.
Many other solutions require complete replacement of the wireless radios and their
integrated enclosures.
• WiMAX continues to be an evolving standard, one that holds promise especially for
public safety wireless applications. Understanding Council’s interest in this coming
technology (and staff agrees it is a part of the future wireless landscape), a brief
applications comparison of WiFi and WiMAX is included at the end of this report.
Essentially, WiFi and WiMAX are expected to co-exist and be complementary once
WiMAX standards have been finalized. They are designed for different applications.
Currently, WiMAX is quite appropriate for longer range applications in open areas
without lots of trees and taller buildings. WiFi complements WiMAX in denser urban
areas where tree canopies, curved streets, and hilly topography create signal reception
challenges. This is why we see virtually all municipal wireless Internet services around
the country currently focused on WiFi.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 6
The complementary piece of WiMAX relevant to St. Louis Park is twofold: First, some areas are
somewhat “open”, allowing WiMAX type data transmission for specific high-speed business
services. This is an offering that the City and its management partner will consider for those
businesses requiring faster Internet service. Second, Proxim (the wireless network provider in the
bid) is a member of the standards setting WiMAX Forum. Proxim’s activity in the WiMAX
arena positions it to support and help integrate WiMAX into St. Louis Park’s network as
standards evolve, products become available at reasonable prices, and WiMAX technologies
become truly competitive. Signs of this happening will be when we start seeing WiMAX
customer device prices fall and WiMAX radios integrated into laptops and other devices in the
way WiFi radios have been integrated. Some computer manufacturers have also indicated plans
to provide options for both WiFi and WiMAX radios, suggesting the idea of complementary co-
existence in the next several years. This, along with Proxim’s partnership and active participation
in the WiMAX forum, positions the City as well as possible for future upgrades and helps
mitigate against the risk of technological obsolescence.
MANAGEMENT PARTNER NEGOTIATIONS:
While the RFB process has been underway for the wireless network hardware, staff has also been
negotiating with Unplugged Cities (UPC), the management partner that provides the ISP, help
desk, and technical support services. Unplugged Cities provided solid services during the pilot,
learned much that would help in a citywide implementation, and expressed interest in negotiating
an agreement to continue these services in a citywide implementation. Unlike the bid process,
which was necessary given bid law, Unplugged Cities was selected through a Request for
Proposal process that allows for negotiations.
Two elements to the management partnerships were key to negotiate. First, the services to be
provided must meet the expectations of subscribers (we also need to help set subscriber
expectations). Second, the revenues generated from the subscription fees must approach
adequate cash flows so the wireless service revenues meet operational and capital costs.
Principles of the business points being negotiated between Unplugged Cities (UPC) and the City
of St. Louis Park (SLP), many of which build on those in the pilot, include:
o UPC shall pay SLP $14 per month per subscriber for use of the network and specified
SLP support. This per subscriber rate would change based on any tiered price
changes.
All subscriber revenues beyond the $14 per month per subscriber are UPC’s.
• This includes add on revenues such as VPN’s, static IP’s, VoIP, and other.
• The per subscriber fee is not dependant upon which service is taken (i.e.,
fee is same for Dialup Buster, Basic, and Deluxe services).
Any advertising or sponsorship revenue is SLP’s.
SLP upon reaching a breakeven cash flow will consider a reduction of
incremental subscriber fees. Alternative actions that SLP may consider include,
but are not limited to:
• Consider developing an assistance program for low income households for
equipment, access, and/or training, which would also increase the number
of subscribers and revenue to UPC.
• Consider a reduction of fee paid by UPC to SLP.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 7
• Consider funding an expansion of wireless or fiber network to expand
potential subscriber base.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, UPC is responsible for all
costs and expenses to operate and maintain the ISP, the wireless network, and
electronic to optic interfaces to the SLP fiber network.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, SLP is responsible to fund all
network and CPE costs to implement the wireless and fiber network.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, SLP is responsible for
maintaining the physical fiber network including locates, repairing cuts, and other
damage to the fiber cable.
o SLP retains the right to set policies, approve pricing in a timely manner, and maintain
ownership of the subscriber.
o Both SLP and UPC are taking a risk; both SLP and UPC have potential rewards.
o MDU’s and businesses not connected via the Wi-Fi network will be dealt with on a
case-by-case base in terms of equipment investments and revenue sharing.
1. St. Louis Park Responsibilities
1.1. Own and finance network
1.1.1. Provide required network and CPE financing
1.1.2. Provide facilities for authentication server, core switches, and core routers
1.1.3. Provide authentication hardware and software
1.1.4. Provide core network (routers and switches)
1.2. Provide access to mounting assets
1.2.1. Provide access to Xcel Energy mounting assets
1.2.2. Cover pole attachment fees.
1.2.3. Provide access to SLP mounting assets
1.2.4. Help facilitate access to non-Xcel Energy and non-SLP mounting assets
1.3. Maintain ownership of subscriber
1.3.1. Provide community brand image
1.3.2. Monitor subscriber satisfaction
1.3.3. Maintain subscriber "hot-line"
1.3.4. Monitor feedback regarding management partner performance
1.3.5. Maintain ownership of domain names
1.3.6. Cover SLP requested adjustments (write-offs) to accounts
1.4. Set policies
1.4.1. Set operating policy
1.4.2. Approve service offerings and prices
1.4.3. Approve all marketing and promotion activities on a timely basis
1.4.4. Set policy for potential advertising and sponsorship revenues (i.e. Yahoo and
others)
1.4.4.1. Revenue sharing for advertising (different than value added services)
1.5. Provide specified support to Management Partner
1.5.1. Provide liaison staff support (Business Manager, in-house or contracted)
1.5.2. Support marketing efforts via existing communication mechanisms
1.5.3. Monitor financial performance, including reports as required by City
1.5.4. Manage demarcation between SLP and management partner, including
replacement of management partner if required
1.5.5. Provide primary and redundant Internet connection (transport and bandwidth)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 8
1.5.6. Sponsor educational workshops
1.5.7. Provide storefront
2. Unplugged Cities Responsibilities
2.1. Provide subscriber contact
2.1.1. Maintain subscriber satisfaction
2.1.2. Manage subscriber expectations
2.1.3. Hold monthly subscriber meetings to listen to what is working well, what needs
improvement, and provide tips on getting more out of the wireless network
2.1.4. Direct and fund sales and marketing efforts
2.1.5. Perform monthly billing
2.1.5.1. Issue monthly billing in format approved by SLP
2.1.5.2. Cover uncollectible subscriber fees (bad debt)
2.1.5.3. Collect subscriber fees
2.1.5.4. Deposit funds in destination approved by SLP
2.1.6. Provide 7x24 help desk
2.1.7. Provide Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 support (for all major desktop and laptop Windows,
Macintosh, and Linux operating systems)
2.1.8. Provide store front staffing (minimum of 1 person in store at all times, rush hours
additional staff provided).
2.1.9. Conduct and schedule professional installations
2.1.9.1. Can charge subscriber a "competitive" installation charge if required ($100
or less), SLP approval required
2.1.9.2. Supply subscriber hardware and antennas (beyond standard CPE) for
installations.
2.2. Perform network operations
2.2.1. Operate and maintain wireless network including fiber media converters
2.2.2. Provide required wireless network firmware upgrades
2.2.3. Maintain core network (routers and switches)
2.2.4. Monitor and maintain Internet connection.
2.2.4.1. Recommend capacity additions.
2.2.5. Monitor wireless and fiber network
2.3. Operate the ISP
2.3.1. Maintain and manage authentication (process)
2.3.2. Provide email services, including servers
2.3.3. Provide all services including servers required to operate the ISP, except for
authentication server.
2.3.4. Provide operational statistics
Staff believes that the single most critical success factor is execution by the management partner,
its ability to respond appropriately to subscriber needs, build positive subscriber relationships,
and make course corrections in services provided as needed. The most significant course
correction needed during the pilot was the help desk. Unplugged Cities worked with and
improved the help desk, and has committed to hiring its own help desk staff in a citywide
service, instead of outsourcing it as happened in the pilot. Revenues generated for the City
through the management agreement, in conjunction with actual bid pricing, suggests a much
greater likelihood of revenues meeting costs than originally projected (see updated project
financials below).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 9
There is always risk that the management partner will not perform to expectations. To mitigate
against this risk, the agreement with the management partner is proposed to have an initial term
of 3 years, with the option to renew for another 2 years. Each term would include an opt out
clause for each party. The total length of the agreement of 5 years matches the expected life of
the wireless network equipment (the fiber portion would have a 20 – 30 year life). Mitigation of
risks is also promoted by the City owning almost all of the fixed network equipment and costs,
while the management partner is responsible for most of the variable costs. This provides the
City opportunities to consider cleaner exit strategies at the end of 5 years or sooner, if options are
present.
UPDATED PROJECT FINANCIALS:
The apparent low-bid for the Wi-Fi network was substantially less than anticipated. In addition,
the low-bid included having the radios powered by solar and battery. This eliminates the energy
portion of the pole attachment fees and increases the network’s attractiveness for public service
and safety use. These cost reductions, along with the agreement in principle made with
Unplugged Cities (UPC) reduces the required investment and the required number of subscribers
to maintain a break-even cash flow.
The updated cost-benefit model assumptions include:
o UPC pays St. Louis Park (SLP) $14 per month per subscriber (see above).
o The total bid price for the Wi-Fi network and CPE’s remain as quoted.
$86 per CPE (customer equipment)
$483,300 for fiber additions.
$1,144,321 for Wi-Fi additions.
o Additional implementation costs include:
$150,000 for storage, facility upgrades, project management, and misc. expense.
$225,000 for contingency and 50% of pilot costs.
$106,000 for equipment spares.
$200,000 for core network (routers, switches, and authentication).
$190,000 for sales tax.
o Bonding requirements of $3,228,703
5 Year (Wi-Fi, Core Network and Operational Costs) $2,845,403
20 Year (Fiber) $483,300.
Given the above assumptions, the break-even cash flow is at a subscriber level of 32% of all
eligible households (does not include the 1,600 residences in large MDU’s) and 15% of SLP
businesses. This cash flow analysis does not include potential public service benefits or potential
advertising revenues.
The impact of public service benefits is shown in Table 1. Please note that an annual $20,000 of
public service benefits is obtained by reduction of existing EvDO expenses. In addition, please
note that this analysis is subject to change as an outcome of the detailed bid analysis underway.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 10
Attribute Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Annual Public Service
Benefit -$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 100,000$
Advertising Revenue
per Subscriber -$ -$ -$ -$
Required % of
Households 32.1%31.3%30.8%27.9%
End of Year 5 Cash
Balance 7,400$ 3,800$ 9,000$ 6,350$
Table 1: Impact of Public Service Benefits
The impact of public service benefits and potential advertising revenues is shown in Table 2.
Please note that a toolbar for Google, Yahoo, or other search engine, may generate $1 to $2 per
month per subscriber. The advertising revenues reduce the required number of households by
2.6%.
Attribute Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Annual Public Service
Benefit -$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 100,000$
Advertising Revenue
per Subscriber 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
Required % of
Households 29.4%28.6%28.2%25.5%
End of Year 5 Cash
Balance 6,900 11,000 7,900 7,700
Table 2: Impact of Public Service Benefits (With Ad Revenue)
Table 3 shows the sensitivity of the number of households acquiring the service. Please note that
no public service or advertising revenues is included in Table 3.
Attribute Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Annual Public Service
Benefit -$ -$ -$ -$
Advertising Revenue
per Subscriber -$ -$ -$ -$
Actual % of Households 15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%
End of Year 5 Cash
Balance (2,037,000)$ (1,435,000)$ (844,000)$ (240,500)$
Table 3: Impact of Subscribers
Table 4 shows the impact of adding $20,000 per year in Public Service benefits to the sensitivity
of the percentage of subscribers used in Table 3.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 11
Attribute Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Annual Public Service
Benefit 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$
Advertising Revenue
per Subscriber -$ -$ -$ -$
Actual % of Households 15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%
End of Year 5 Cash
Balance (1,940,000)$ (1,335,500)$ (743,500)$ (140,000)$
Table 4: Impact of Subscribers (With Public Service Benefits)
Table 5 then adds in the $1 per month per subscriber advertising revenue to the sensitivity shown
in Table 4. Please note the break-even cash flow with $1 per month per subscriber of advertising
revenue and $20,000 in annual public service benefits results is 26.2% of households.
Attribute Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Annual Public Service
Benefit 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$
Advertising Revenue
per Subscriber 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
Actual % of Households 15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%
End of Year 5 Cash
Balance (1,755,000)$ (1,103,000)$ (461,000)$ 200,500$
Table 5: Impact of Subscribers (With Public Service Benefits & Ad Revenue)
We are in evaluation of the low-bid. If the bid does not have significant deficiencies, it offers
SLP an attractive alternative that could require less than 30% of households to maintain a break-
even cash flow.
In addition, the maximum projected loss if the citywide take rate matches the 25% in the pilot is
$844,000 over 5 years. If the take rate were 30%, that loss is reduced to $240,000 over 5 years.
This is based on retail sales only and assumes no credit for public safety, public service, or other
communitywide benefits.
UPDATED RISK MITIGATION PROFILE:
A major concern around project approval is the mitigation of risk. Much of that has to do with
having as much information as possible, and minimizing costs where possible. Some of the ways
in which staff has attempted to mitigate risk for Council consideration includes:
• Overall project pricing, which has been significantly reduced through the bid process and
negotiations with the management partner.
• Elimination of a projected project deficit while also reducing the number of subscribers
necessary to do so.
• Technology that reduces use of electrical power and related costs.
• Technology that relies on solar power, reducing the risk of communications breakdowns
due to power outages, and also good for the environment.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 12
• For public safety and public services, a high speed data communications system that
works when the electrical grid is down or at risk, often at times when public safety and
services are most needed.
• Technology that is made up of components that can be upgraded as technology is
upgraded, moved as needed to optimize network performance, and re-used. This
mitigates against obsolescence.
• Integration of WiMAX style technology between the distributed wireless radios and fiber
backbone, initiating the use of the evolving standard into the wireless network.
• A much better informed projection of the potential cash flows, both positive and
negative, and ceilings of financial risk.
• To the extent possible, clean demarcation of fixed costs / activities and variable costs /
activities between the City and management partner. This facilitates a change of
management partner if needed, and a full or partial exit strategy.
• Review of the financial stability of vendors, particularly the lead vendor of the low bid,
ARINC. The City’s Finance Department has reviewed financials of ARINC and
concluded it believes that the company has adequate financial resources to perform the
contractual duties outlined in their bid.
• On-going research and analysis of the low bid prior to a determination of whether it is the
lowest responsible bid prior to the November 6 Council meeting.
• If a decision is made to move forward citywide, an implementation plan that starts with
pilot neighborhoods, optimizes performance there first, and then expands into other parts
of the city in a phased approach.
PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC SERVICE, AND COMMUNITYWIDE BENEFITS:
A number of public safety, public service, and communitywide benefits present themselves:
• The City currently pays approximately $20,000 per year for wireless services. The speed
of this technology (EvDO) is insufficient to transmit or receive large files such as pictures
and graphics either in a reasonable amount of time or at all. The citywide wireless system
would improve those speeds to make such functions possible.
• The $20,000 per year cost for EvDO would be reduced significantly as this service would
be needed only when outside the boundaries of St. Louis Park.
• Communitywide, this would provide an affordably priced high speed wireless Internet
service for current dial-up users or people who cannot currently afford Internet service at
all, one of the prime reasons for considering this service at all.
• Complementing this service would be an initiative to provide refurbished computers to
households that cannot currently afford them, so that people have a digital device with
which to connect to the wireless service.
• Adding 9.1 miles of fiber infrastructure would expand the community’s fiber
infrastructure to over 21 miles, providing high speed capacity for future economic growth
and possible leasing revenues.
• WiMAX technology is likely to evolve, equipment become more affordable and non-
proprietary, and would be ideal to provide mobile metropolitan area public safety
coverage on the 4.9 GHz frequency. At that point, it will be worth considering fuller
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 13
deployment of WiMAX. Until then, this project would incorporate some early versions of
WiMAX while continuing use of EvDO outside of St. Louis Park.
• Public safety data communications is available during electrical grid interruptions.
• Other field workers, such as appraisers and inspectors, are enabled to be more productive
and in the field more than their offices.
Here are some other more generic policy benefits that have been identified in the industry
(provided courtesy of Johnson Controls)*, some of which apply to St. Louis Park:
• An Enhanced Image Of Your Community and Local Government
By providing access to a wireless network, your peer and neighbor governments, businesses
and residents will view your community as progressive, socially and economically
responsible and committed to realizing the current opportunities and future needs of its
constituents.
• Increased Competitiveness
A wireless network links your community to the opportunities of the global economy. Cost-
effective and equal-opportunity access will help you retain the talent and energy of residents
and businesses in your community, as well as attract future businesses and residents.
Connecting those who currently have no access will increase economic opportunity and
bridge the digital divide for all residents regardless of economic status.
• Increased Community Safety and Security
The many uses for police and fire departments, EMT’s and first responders will help improve
communications, decreases response times and increase the safety and security of businesses,
employees and residents.
• Increased Government Efficiency and Responsiveness
By leveraging one network, sharing connectivity and realizing the opportunities for all
municipal functions, public service will be more productive and efficient, easing pressure on
operating budgets and improving communications with the community. Cost savings will be
realized, service levels will improve and an infrastructure for cost-effective growth will be in
place.
A chart of the specific applications identified by users cities is provided in the following pages.
While each of these applications has a very real benefit, many of the benefits are in improved
services or quality of the working and living environment and do not necessarily have a direct
financial benefit. Typical cost savings examples are also provided for applications which will
offset existing city operations costs.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 14
User Applications Outcomes
City
Government
Wired Data: Replace leased lines with wireless connections at
government buildings, schools, libraries and hospitals
Reduces cost through elimination of multiple individual accounts and
monthly base fees.
Cellular Voice and Data: Replace cell phones and cell-based
data cards with voice-over-IP devices and wifi laptops for local
communications,
Eliminates cell phones, radios, and cell-based data cards
VOIP Consolidation: Replace aging PBXs and consolidate to
a VOIP-enabled PBX
Reduces in-building phone costs
Police Mobile broadband communications network Enhanced communications network dependability, reduced network costs.
Replace high cost pcs data services to first responder vehicles.
Real-time identification of closest squad car to emergency
scene
Improved response times and community safety
Real-time access to local/state criminal databases at speeds
up to 200 mph
Data transmission for viewing mug shots, drivers license information,
photographs, and other high bandwidth applications
Ability to complete paperwork in field Less time lost to commuting to station, fewer vehicle costs (fuel and
maintenance), more visibility in community, increased safety and security
of residents and businesses
Live video feed from squad car to station Provide backup support and guidance for officers in the field
Public Safety Inter-connectivity Improved inter-office communication, disaster communications and
recovery logistics
Mobile Video Surveillance Ability to conduct video surveillance any where, identify suspects and track
post-crime movement, special event or short term monitoring
Potential future electronic traffic ticketing (red light violators) Reduced traffic violations, less paperwork, fewer man-hours
Potential future electronic parking meters Ease of use for community, auto notification of violations
Potential direct alarm services for businesses and residents Revenue generation, reduced crime
Fire / EMT Mobile broadband communications network Enhanced communications network dependability, reduced network costs.
Replace high cost pcs data services to first responder vehicles.
Real-time identification of closest ambulance/fire truck to an
emergency scene
Improved response times and community safety
Real-time access to building plans, permits and hazardous
material details en-route to fires or inspections
Improve fire department response and fireman/community safety
Personnel locator Improve fire fighter safety with ability to locate fallen personnel
Fire and Emergency Medical Mobile Data Access patient healthcare records on site
Medical equipment and monitors communications with
hospital
Ability to transmit patient statistics from ambulance directly to hospital
while en route.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 15
Map and remotely access hazardous material locations and
storage info
Improve safety and security
Ability to complete paperwork in field More thorough reporting, less duplication in report generation
Building
Inspectors
Mobile broadband communications network Enhanced communications network dependability, reduced network costs.
Replace high cost pcs data services to first responder vehicles.
Download files and generate reports in the field Less time lost to commuting to office, fewer vehicle costs (fuel and
maintenance), reduced man-hour costs
Building inspectors get assignments; enter data, and issue
permits and licenses in the field
Avoid additional trips to the office or time on the phone for both inspectors
and community members. Able to process more inspections per day.
Public Works Mobile broadband communications network Enhanced communications network dependability, reduced network costs.
Field communications. Transmit work orders to field. Field
crews submit work completion reports, material orders from
field.
Reduced man-hours, fewer vehicle costs (fuel and maintenance).
Remote monitoring capabilities for city infrastructure including:
water treatment and distribution, wells, towers, pumping
stations, waste water collection systems, sewage lift stations,
waste water treatment plants, landfill, electrical substations,
other utility plants (motion sensors and video monitors)
Allows increased security of systems through monitoring of tampering,
contaminant detection, leak detection, inflow and infiltration detection.
Reduced man-hours, transportation, fuel costs.
SCADA system improvements Reduced system costs for hard wiring and communication systems
(dedicated phone lines) monitor pressure and flow, improved pumping
efficiency, reduced electric costs through demand management
Automatic Meter Reading Reduce man-hour, transportation, fuel costs. On demand meter queries for
improved customer service. Customer load profiling. Improved data
analysis capabilities to determine right size and right type of meters.
Tamper and theft detection. No estimated billing. Fewer customer
complaints regarding billing errors. Enables time of use billing, more
consistent meter reading dates.
Map and remotely access hazardous material locations and
storage info
Improve safety and security
Asset Tracking (fleet monitoring and route mapping) Reduce theft, vandalism, replacement costs
Manage street lighting Control and monitor street lights and parking garages
Manage traffic flow (traffic light sequencing, video feeds) Ease traffic congestion, wait times, improve flow
Future expansion to public information signage Notify public through roadway signage of traffic hazards, extreme weather
alerts, public safety concerns, Amber alerts
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 16
Irrigation control systems Water conservation, reduced man-hours, transportation and fuel costs to
irrigate parks, cemeteries
Remote building HVAC controls Monitor conditions and equipment alarms, control equipment, sequences
of operations and schedules remotely, implement demand limiting control
strategies
Storm water monitoring Flow control, diversion of flow
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 17
Finance/Utility
Billing
Automatic data importing Reduced billing errors
More consistent billing Improved cash flow
Schools Broadband and communications capabilities connects
teachers with students and parents
Improved community relations
Video surveillance Improve emergency communications, increased student, teacher and
public safety
T-1/OC-3 replacement Cost reduction and speed improvement
Libraries Broadband connects staff and facilities to schools and
community
Improved communications and sense of community
Parks &
Recreation
Parks & Rec access card allowing residents free / reduced fee
access but charges visitors
Enhanced revenues
On-line and "in field" facility reservations Improved user satisfaction and cost savings
Recreation. improve business at city rec facilities by allowing
individuals to stay connected while children participate in rec
activities (i.e., surf while they swim)
Higher facility usage, improved revenue
Health Care
Providers
Broadband access for healthcare workers such as hospice or
Meals on Wheels.
Enables caregivers to locate patients using maps, also access health
records as needed. Can communicate reports back to primary care
physicians. Also enables communication to family members.
Business &
Economic
Development
Be seen as progressive community Attracts "high tech" businesses and jobs
Affordable services to new businesses Attracts new businesses, increases competitiveness
Links community to global economy Helps retain talented residents and businesses.
Broadband access for industry such as realtors. Helps retain talented residents and businesses.
Broadband network access at convention centers and public
locations
Attracts business travelers, conventions, and tourism
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 18
POSSIBLE EXIT STRATEGIES:
Should the City decide to move forward with a citywide project, then later consider exit
strategies due to market corrections or other reasons, the approach described above facilitates
that by separation of fixed and variable costs and investments between the city and management
partner, and placing responsibility for billing and customer service on the management partner.
As a result, in this plan, the city has minimized its staffing needs to one FTE.
A partial exit strategy would likely include new ownership of the wireless network and customer
equipment, while a fuller exit strategy would likely include that and ownership transfer of other
network hardware owned by the city. It is difficult to foresee a time when the city and schools
would surrender ownership of the fiber infrastructure. If anything, there may well be more
benefit to seeing that infrastructure grow as an “information highway” for communitywide
benefit, much like the city builds roads on which economic development occurs.
COMPARATIVE COSTS AND FEATURES:
Staff is currently working on an updated matrix of comparative features and costs among
different Internet service providers. This will include comparisons of costs for service and
installation and features. Average speed of functions will also be included. Council will receive
that before its November 6 Council meeting.
Meantime, both the telephone company and cable company continue to provide DSL and cable
modem service similar to that provided when this study began 2 years ago.
More recently Sprint, Nextel, Verizon, and Clearwire are among those providers who have been
discussing future WiMAX deployments to provide higher speed wireless service. Staff will also
conduct additional research on the status of this per Council interest. What is understood
currently is that such a service may be designed as the next level of current higher end wireless
broadband, targeted at business people and travelers and not as a low-cost network designed
around residential affordability.
DISCUSSIONS WITH SURROUNDING SUBURBS:
Per Council direction, staff met with the City Managers of Golden Valley, Minnetonka,
Plymouth, Hopkins, and Edina to describe the current pilot wireless project in St. Louis Park and
the possibilities for a citywide implementation. The City Managers discussed wireless
opportunities and challenges similar to those St. Louis Park has been considering over the last
two years. With some variation, while the City Managers expressed interest in St. Louis Park’s
wireless project, most of them would like to observe how St. Louis Park’s project plays out.
Some interest was expressed in possibly setting up limited wireless hotspots in a couple of the
communities.
PREFERRERD MINNEAPOLIS SERVICE PROVIDER:
The City Council expressed interest in learning more about the City of Minneapolis wireless
project. During the St. Louis Park’s RFB process, the City of Minneapolis continued its process
in identifying a preferred vendor to provide its wireless services. Through that process, U.S.
Internet has been identified as the preferred vendor. Minneapolis and U.S. Internet continue to
work on details for agreements. That notwithstanding, U.S. Internet (not the City of
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 19
Minneapolis) has been in contact with City of St. Louis Park staff and its consultant regarding St.
Louis Park’s project and the potential for U.S. Internet to provide wireless Internet services to St.
Louis Park. Here are some highlights of communications with U.S. Internet:
• The City of St. Louis Park appreciates U.S. Internet’s interest in the possible citywide
project. As a result of those conversations, U.S. Internet was invited and encouraged to
submit a bid in response to St. Louis Park’s RFB process.
• City of St. Louis Park staff also informed U.S. Internet of St. Louis Park’s interest in
developing a roaming agreement or other kinds of service reciprocity that would allow
subscribers in both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park to connect to wireless services in each
city. It would seem that such roaming capability would be advantageous to subscribers in
both cities. St. Louis Park supports open approaches for wireless users.
• U.S. Internet did attend the pre-bid meeting on September 7 to receive information that
other potential bidders did.
• No bid was received from U.S. Internet by the bid submission deadline of 1:00 p.m. on
September 22. Thus, there is no offering from U.S. Internet that can legally be considered
in this current bid process.
While U.S. Internet did not submit a bid in this process, staff recognizes the potential
significance of the project in Minneapolis. As a result, staff will prepare a matrix for Council
information that compares and contrasts the approach in Minneapolis to that in St. Louis Park on
several cost and feature dimensions. Research on that continues to provide the most current
information and such will be provided to Council prior to its November 6 meeting.
Please note that all staff and consultant contacts have been made by U.S. Internet, and not the
City of Minneapolis.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council has been studying the possibility of wireless service for two years. This study has
included the very wise decision to implement and learn from a pilot project. Staff feels the City
has completed much due diligence and gathered much information, including the latest bids.
Technology and circumstances will continue to evolve. This can feel like a threat; it can also be
an opportunity. This report has tried to present a balanced approach to findings to provide
Council information to make an informed choice.
Staff feels it should take a bit more time to analyze the apparent lowest bid to ensure it is
responsible, address follow-up questions of Council, and provide additional community
education, especially on the solar technology being contemplated. Staff also feels the time to
choose is soon, preferably November 6. The reasons are fourfold. First, we will have as much
information to make a decision as we will at any point in time; things always change. Second, if
the City Council continues to be interested in this project, we currently have equipment bidders
and a management partner who are willing to participate, take risks of their own, and provide this
service within cost and risk constraints that are as good as or better than originally projected.
Third, it is clear to staff that people are hopeful for decisiveness on the part of the City. Put
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 20
bluntly, pilot fatigue has set in – people want to know whether the wireless service is one they
can fully commit to or this high-speed Internet service alternative is not going to continue. This
is a window of opportunity to make a thoughtful and timely decision. Staff feels it would be
better for the City Council to decide to not move forward with this project than delay a decision
beyond November 6.
Most importantly, the key policy question is one only the Council can answer -- whether the
community of St. Louis Park is better off by the City playing some role in the provision of
wireless high-speed Internet service to meet the various goals of the service. While community
and Council members will see the answer to this question differently, it is strongly recommended
that the decision be made. Staff hopes Council feels it has the information to do so after an
intensive 2-year process.
If the Council agrees, it is recommended Council close the public hearing and place this item on
the November 6, 2006 agenda for consideration of Council options, including authorizing staff to
enter into agreements for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to
provide management partner services for said network; follow-up on remaining questions; and
provide additional community communications on the project, including an update to current
pilot subscribers. Staff will present a number of options and possible consequences for Council
on November 6.
*corrections to original report made at October 16 public hearing.
Attachments: WiFi and WiMAX
Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 21
WiFi and WiMAX
October 2, 2006
WiFi and WiMAX are complementary technologies, not competing ones. The most
fundamental difference is that they are designed for entirely different applications. A
blend of WiFi (IEEE 802.11) and WiMax (IEEE 802.16) technologies may offer a
flexible and accessible wireless broadband approach for businesses, residents, municipal,
and school organizations.
WiFi is a Local Area Network (LAN) technology designed to support user portability.
Many vendors have taken advantage of the standards and have developed Wide Area
Networks (WAN’s) to support community-wide applications.
• Several vendors have developed proprietary Mesh Networks using WiFi
technology. Mesh Networks will blanket an area so that virtually all of the
community will have coverage. Other vendors deploy WiFi using sectored
antennas, time-slotting, and other methods to increase coverage area.
• WiFi, as specified in the standards, is appropriate for hot-spots or other LAN
applications.
• WiFi, as developed by meshed network vendors, is appropriate for community-
wide applications and support of low cost residential and small business Internet
access.
WiMax is designed for Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) fixed and vehicle-based
wireless access.
• Initial WiMax Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) is much more expensive than
WiFi and requires an external antenna installation. WiMax CPE devices are
projected to cost in the $650 to $1,000 range.
• Initial WiMax applications include wireless T1 services, hotspot back-haul, and
other transport services.
• WiMax standards are still under development to address the needs of mobile
applications (802.16e); however, there are vendors that offer a pre-WiMax product
that supports mobile data terminal applications.
Unfortunately, trade journals often portray WiFi and WiMax as an either/or selection;
in reality WiFi and WiMax are complimentary. The confusion between WiFi and
WiMax results from some basic misconceptions, including:
• WiFi is often stated as having a 300 foot coverage limit. This is not necessarily
true.
º The WiFi LAN standard, as specified, will have difficulty covering more than 300
feet.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 6c - Public Hearing Citywide Wireless Bids Rev. 2
Page 22
º Meshed network vendors leverage the WiFi standards to take advantage of
manufacturing economies of scale, while enhancing the effective coverage area.
Coverage limits are constrained by the CPE to radio node link, not the
radio node to CPE link.
Meshed network vendors increase the coverage limit by increasing CPE
transmit power (how loud the CPE speaks) and increasing the base
station receiver sensitivity (how well it listens). These modifications
allow the effective coverage to approach 800 to 1,000 feet, while
maintaining a “standards-based” CPE.
• WiMax is touted as a technology which will support coverage ranges of 20 or
more miles under non line-of-site conditions. This is not true.
º WiMax, in theory, will cover a radius of 20 or more miles, under the right conditions
(i.e., line-of-site, no trees, and no other obstacles), and depending upon the specific
frequencies used. WiMax has standards for use in the non-licensed (5GHz) and
licensed (2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz) frequencies; in addition the standards can be applied
to a range of frequencies.
º WiMax could be used to support non line-of-site connections, particularly at
frequencies below typical WiFi transmissions (such as the 700 MHz bands being
recaptured from television broadcasters); however, the effective coverage radius will
likely be less than 3 miles.
Given the above characteristics, WiMax and WiFi are suited for different applications.
We present sample applications supported by WiMax and WiFi technologies in Table 1:
Table 1: Application Types by Wireless Technology
Application WiMax WiFi
Fixed Transport Services (Fractional T1 to 100Mbs)
Business Internet (DSL and T1 replacement)
Back-haul from WiFi Hot Spots
Moderate Cost Internet Access for Rural Areas
Low-cost Internet Access for Residents and Small
Business
Portable Connectivity Access
Public Safety and Other Vehicle-Based Applications
User Mobility/Portability Applications
Campus Networks
Wireless Hot Spots
Apartment or Dorm Networks
This examination shows that WiMax and WiFi are not competing technologies, but are
actually complementary technologies. The difference comes down to the fact that WiMax
and WiFi have a different fit depending upon the application. Selection of a WiMax or
WiFi technology should be based upon which applications you want to enable.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8a - Permit Parking 2900 Block Glenhurst Ave
Page 1
8a. Permit parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Ave So - Traffic Study No. 600
This report requests that the City Council consider adopting a resolution to install permit
parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue South.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution installing permit parking on
the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue South and “No Parking Anytime”
restrictions on the east side of Glenhurst Avenue from Minnetonka
Boulevard to a point 110 feet to the north.
BACKGOUND:
In September of 2005, residents contacted City staff with concerns over heavy parking patterns,
speeding, and cut-through traffic in the area around the intersection of Glenhurst Avenue and
Sunset Boulevard. At the time, a new restaurant, Yum!, was under construction at the corner of
Minnetonka Boulevard and Glenhurst Avenue and the residents were concerned that this would
put additional pressure on parking and traffic in the neighborhood.
City staff held a meeting on October 11, 2005, to allow residents to discuss traffic concerns in
their neighborhood. Speeding, cut-through traffic, and parking were identified by the residents
as problems in the neighborhood. After the meeting, staff collected parking, speed and volume
data for streets in the neighborhood before and after Yum! opened. Data showed that speeding
was not an issue in the neighborhood, as average speeds were below the speed limit. Traffic
volumes were found to be higher on Glenhurst Avenue, Sunset Boulevard, and Inglewood
Avenue than on adjacent streets. Parking was shown to be heavy on the 2900 block of Glenhurst
Avenue, but normal in the rest of the neighborhood. There was little change in traffic volumes
or speeds before and after Yum! opened; however, parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst was
heavier after Yum! opened.
City staff held another meeting on February 8, 2006, to present findings and to discuss possible
solutions. The two primary issues identified were cut-through traffic on Glenhurst Avenue and
Sunset Boulevard and heavy parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue. Possible
mitigation measures discussed included modifying the timing of the traffic signal at the
intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and France Avenue, closing the access across County
Road 25 (aligned with Glenhurst Avenue), making Glenhurst Avenue a one way street, and
various types of parking restrictions on the 2900 block of Glenhurst. City staff worked with City
of Minneapolis staff to improve the timing of the traffic signal, which now appears to be working
well. City staff also discussed the possibility of closing the access across CR 25 with Hennepin
County staff, but ultimately did not pursue that option as the residents were not in favor of it and
it did not appear that it would improve the cut-through situation, only redirect it elsewhere.
The options for parking restrictions on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue that were discussed
at the meeting included 2 hour parking restrictions, consistent with the restrictions already in
place on Huntington and Inglewood Avenues, parking on only one side of the street, and permit
parking/resident parking only. Staff informed residents that permit parking/resident parking only
was not an option. Residents were informed that there are many areas within the City that have
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8a - Permit Parking 2900 Block Glenhurst Ave
Page 2
similar parking conflicts between residents and neighboring businesses, and permit parking is
normally not considered appropriate. Permit parking is typically used within the City for larger-
scale problem areas such as the Senior High School and Methodist Hospital, as well as for
individual homes where the homeowner is a disabled person.
In April of 2006, staff sent out a survey to residents on the 2800 and 2900 blocks of Glenhurst
Avenue, the 2900 block of Huntington Avenue, and the two blocks of Sunset Boulevard between
France and Huntington Avenues. The survey asked for opinions on various parking restriction
options, including “No Parking Anytime”, 2 hour parking, and one-sided parking restrictions.
There were 12 responses total, and while most residents expressed dissatisfaction with the
current situation, there was no clear consensus about what should be done. There were some
expressed concerns that placing restrictions on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue may shift the
parking problem to Sunset Boulevard or the 2800 block of Glenhurst Avenue. It was also
expressed that removing or restricting parking on Glenhurst Avenue may make the cut-through
problem worse by making Glenhurst more open and easier to drive through.
Based on the mixed responses communicated by the survey and aware that Yum! intended to
build a new parking lot on the Glenhurst Automotive site, staff had planned to wait and see what
effect the new parking lot would have on the parking situation. In August, area residents
contacted Councilmember Sanger and expressed their desire for permit parking along the 2900
block of Glenhurst Avenue.
Based on this input, staff sent a letter in September to the same residents who received the
previous survey about parking restrictions, advising them of our intent to consider permit parking
on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue and requesting comments. The proposal is to restrict
parking on both sides of the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue, except the area immediately
adjacent to Yum! and the Glenhurst Automotive site. The spaces adjacent to Yum! are counted
in their parking requirements. As a condition of the new Yum! parking lot, parking on Glenhurst
Avenue south of the new driveway will be removed entirel y for traffic flow purposes. The
attached resolution also authorizes these “No Parking Anytime” restrictions. The restrictions
would limit parking 7 days per week from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. to only those vehicles displaying a
permit. Permits will be issued by the City at no cost to the property owners on the 2900 block of
Glenhurst Avenue.
As of this writing, staff has received 3 responses to this letter: Two residents who live on the
2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue are in favor of the proposed permit parking restrictions. One
resident of the 2900 block of Huntington Avenue believes that parking on her block will become
worse due to these restrictions and wants to have permit parking in front of her duplex as well.
The new parking lot for Yum! is currently under construction. Yum! also has plans to add some
new tables to their restaurant, and the Thomas Charles Salon has plans to add on to their
building. These plans have gone through the Planning and Zoning Department and with the
construction of the new parking lot the supply of parking spaces exceeds the parking
requirements by 15 spaces.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8a - Permit Parking 2900 Block Glenhurst Ave
Page 3
SUMMARY:
Based on the final resident input received during August, staff recommends implementing permit
parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Avenue. If Council agrees, adoption of the attached
resolution will establish permit parking on Glenhurst Avenue as requested by area residents
during August as well as establishing “No Parking Anytime” on the east side of Glenhurst
Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to a point 110 feet to the north.
Attachments: Resolution
Location Map (Supplement)
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8a - Permit Parking 2900 Block Glenhurst Ave
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 06-162
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING "PERMIT PARKING ONLY"
ON THE 2900 BLOCK OF GLENHURST AVENUE SOUTH AND RESTRICTING
PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF GLENHURST AVENUE SOUTH FROM
MINNETONKA BOULEVARD TO A POINT 110 FEET TO THE NORTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 600
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking Anytime” on the east side of Glenhurst Avenue South from Minnetonka
Boulevard to a point 100 feet to the north
2. “Permit Parking Only” 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily at the following locations:
West side of Glenhurst Avenue from a point 165 feet north of Minnetonka
Boulevard to Sunset Boulevard.
East side of Glenhurst Avenue from a point 110 feet to the north of Minnetonka
Boulevard to Sunset Boulevard.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted in the area restricted
by permit parking unless the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from the permit parking restrictions.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 1
8b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments for awnings, signs, building materials, and non-
conformities
Case No. 06-52-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, and setting second reading for November 6,
2006.
BACKGROUND:
As a part of our on-going efforts to update the zoning ordinance, several amendments are
presented for Council consideration. The purpose of the changes are to amend and clarify
language in several places, and to include the following substantive changes:
A. Signs – increase size for blade signs, reduce setbacks for some free standing signs,
and increase sign area for multi-family signs.
B. Awnings and canopies – allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways.
C. Use of fiber cement board (Hardie) as a building material.
D. Non-conformities.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 16, 2006 and on September
20, 2006 recommended approval of the attached proposed ordinance. The minutes of both
meetings are attached for your review.
ANALYSIS:
For the items A-D, a discussion is presented below and specific ordinance language is
attached:
A. Signs – increase size for blade signs, establish a uniform setback for freestanding
signs, and increase sign area for multi-family signs.
Blade Signs – Specific increases for sign face and area.
The current regulations limit the sign face for blade signs to nine square feet. This has
resulted in several blade signs at Excelsior & Grand that look unusually small and out of
scale with the development. The McCoy’s and the parking ramp signs are the exception to
the nine square foot limit as they were installed before this limit was adopted. Staff is
proposing to increase the sign face for blade signs to a maximum of 40 square feet. This will
result in a sign face that is consistent with McCoy’s in size.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 2
45 square feet 40 square feet 9 square feet
Sign Ordinance - Establishing uniform setbacks for signs.
This amendment will provide a uniform setback for all free-standing signs. Current
regulations require the same setback for the sign as is required for the building. This is
problematic in that the general practice is to locate signs in the front yard between the
building and the public right-of-way. A typical setback for signage is ten feet from the
property line. Staff is proposing to establish a uniform setback of ten feet for signs in all
zoning districts with the exception of the commercial and M-X districts where the setback
would be five feet. The five foot setback is recommended for these districts because the
buildings can be as close as five feet to the property lines, and a building with a five foot
setback can block views to a neighbor’s sign that is set further back.
Increase sign area for R-4 Multi-Family Residential District
Multi-family uses in the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District are allowed to have up to 25
square feet of sign area regardless of project size. This compares to 40 square feet for small
multi-family uses in the RC district where the property size is less than 20,000 square feet,
and 80 square feet of signage for properties greater than 20,000 square feet in area. Staff is
proposing to increase the allowable signage in the R4 district to 40 square feet to match the
signage allowable for small multi-family uses.
B. Awnings and canopies – allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways.
Staff believes awnings and canopies play an important role in creating the pedestrian
oriented, walkable streets character the city is working to achieve. They meet a need by
providing shelter for pedestrians as they walk along the public sidewalks, and they add to the
charm typically found in a pedestrian oriented neighborhood.
Today’s ordinance allows awnings and canopies as long as they stay at least two feet away
from any property line. With today’s five foot setback for buildings in the commercial and
mixed use district, this allows for an awning or canopy that extends only three feet from the
building leaving pedestrians on the public sidewalk exposed to the elements and serving no
other purpose than to be an applied decoration or a sign.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 3
The proposed amendments will allow awnings and canopies to extend to the property line
with only a building permit, and into the right-of-way with a building permit and a Public
Works private use of public land agreement. (The private use of public land agreement is an
existing format and process used by public works that involves review by staff, and approval
by the City Council.) The amendment also establishes a maximum encroachment into the
public right-of-way of two feet from the street curb, a standard used by some cities in the
metro area including Minneapolis. An eight foot clearance from ground to bottom of awning
or canopy is also established. The eight foot clearance is commonly used throughout the
metro area, and was used in the Excelsior & Grand development. Other provisions in the
amendment include requiring permits, standards for maintenance, and a requirement to
remove the awning/canopy upon order by the city.
C. Use of fiber cement board (Hardie) as a building material.
Hardiboard (or more generically, fiber cement board siding) has been proposed as a building
material for nearly all new multi-unit residential buildings since 2005.
Developers claim that hardiboard is a higher quality product than typical cement stucco,
which is a permitted Class I building material. Hardiboard is durable and sturdy, and does
not shrink or swell. It cannot be damaged by hail and is fire and pest resistant. It is
maintenance free, needing to be repainted only every 20-25 years.
After researching the issue by looking at the architectural standards of other similar cities and
speaking to architects and the Planning Commission about the issue, Staff recommends an
ordinance change that will allow for limited use of hardiboard on certain types of buildings.
The proposed change would limit hardiboard’s use to a maximum of 10% of Class I
materials. Hardiboard would be limited to use on residential buildings only, as hardiboard
may not be an appropriate material for use on commercial or industrial buildings.
Additionally, hardiboard could only be used where a minimum of two other Class I materials
are already in use. Staff concluded that this was the optimal approach as it encourages a
diversity of building materials and creativity in design.
Several other changes were made to the Architectural Standards ordinance primarily to
clarify and re-order sections.
D. Non-conformities.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the ordinance consistent with changes
in state law. The substantive changes include allowing replacement of nonconforming uses
destroyed by fire or other peril and eliminating the amortization provision. Other
amendments simply streamline the ordinance text.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 1st reading of the attached
zoning ordinance amendments, and setting the second reading for November 6, 2006.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 4
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes for August 16, 2006
and September 20, 2006
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 5
ORDINANCE NO. 2320-06
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-73, 36-362, 36-366, AND ARTICLE VI.
RELATIVE TO AWNINGS AND CANOPIES; SIGNS; BUILDING MATERIALS,
NON-CONFORMITIES
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. 06-52-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-73, 36-362, 36-366, and Article
VI are hereby amended as follows by deleting striken language and adding underscored
language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
***
Section 36-73 (Yard Encroachments)
***
(b) Principal building - any yard. The following shall not be encroachments on yard
requirements for principal buildings provided no permanent structure is placed in an easement
without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement:
(1) Balconies, bays and window wells not exceeding a depth of three feet and or containing
an area of less more than 20 square feet.
(2) Chimney, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features,
cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more than three feet into a
required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than four feet from all lot
lines. Building overhangs shall also comply with the state building code.
(3) Terraces and steps which do not extend more than 2 1/2 feet above the height of the
ground floor level of the principal building, awnings, and door hoods provided they are a
minimum of two feet from any lot line.
(4) Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the height of the
ground floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of two feet from any
interior side or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot line and do not encroach on any
side yard abutting a street.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 6
(5) Open covered porches that do not contain either windows or screens and are a minimum
of five feet from any interior side lot line, nine feet from any side yard line abutting a
street, 25 feet from any rear lot line and 20 feet from any front lot line. Porches shall be
open between the floor and the ceiling. All railings shall be open utilizing posts and
spindles.
(6) Awnings, canopies less than 25 feet in width and door hoods for commercial, industrial,
office and multi-family buildings of at least 12 residential units may extend to the front
and side yard abutting the street lot line. Awnings, canopies and door hoods for single
family homes and multi-family buildings of up to 11 residential units may extend up to
four feet into a front and side yard abutting the street. For all uses, awnings, canopies and
door hoods may extend up to four feet into a side and rear yard.
***
Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations.
***
(f) General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory use in
all use districts:
***
(2) Required yards. Signs shall maintain a 10 foot minimum yard to any property line unless
exempted below: No sign shall be erected or maintained in any required yard in any use
district with the following exceptions:
a. In the C-1, C-2 and M-X districts the required yard for any sign less than 200
square feet in sign area shall be 5 feet. All other signs shall have a required yard of
20 feet unless exempted below.
b. In the C-1, C-2 and M-X districts, a blade sign may project into the required front
yard if the sign meets the following requirements:
1. The sign is attached to a wall in such a manner that meets the building code;
and
2. The lowest portion of the sign is no closer than 8 feet to the ground; and
3. The sign shall not extend higher than the lowest portion of a window of a
residential unit located on the second story of a mixed use building.
4. No portion of the sign shall extend more than 4 5 feet into the required yard
from the building, and in no instances shall the sign project into the public
right-of-way.
5. The portion of any sign face extending into the required yard does not exceed
9 40 square feet.
***
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 7
TABLE 36-362A
SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT
Use District
&Lot Size
(sq ft)
Maximum
Sign
Height
(feet)
PERMANENT
SIGNAGE
TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
REAL ESTATE
SIGNAGE
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Size of
Sign Face
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
R-4 6 25 40 25 40 25 80
R-C
0 - 20,000 15 40 40 25 80
Over 20,000 15 80 60 25 80
***
Sec. 36-366. Architectural design.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to serve the public interest by promoting a high standard
of development in the city. Through a comprehensive review of both functional and aesthetic aspects of
new or intensified developments, the city seeks to accomplish the following:
(1) Implement the comprehensive plan;
(2) Preserve the character of neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas;
(3) Reasonably maintain and improve the city tax base;
(4) Reduce the adverse impacts of dissimilar land uses;
(5) Promote orderly and safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
(6) Discourage the development of identical and similar building facades which detract from the
character and appearance of the neighborhood;
(7) Preserve the natural and built environment; and
(8) Minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties from buildings which are or may become
unsightly.
To these ends, the city regulates the development of property in the manner stated in subsection (b) of this
section.
(b) Standards. The standards for development of property are as follows:
(1) The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 8
a. A parapet wall.
b. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop
equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building.
c. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is
most effective.
Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible within 400 feet from
property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections (b)(1)a. and (b)(1)b. of this
section shall be used.
(2) The development must locate the noise-producing portions of the development, such as loading
docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent residential areas.
(3) All outside storage areas shall be screened to minimize off-site views using as a minimum
bufferyard F.
(4) Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks);
refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be
inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views.
(5) All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter.
(71) Building Design. Building design shall be consistent with the following requirements:
a. d. In addition to the minimum criteria, other a Architectural design elements which
that will be considered in the determination as to whether architecture design is superior
the review of buildings and site plans include are building materials, color, and texture,
building bulk, general massing, roof treatment, proportion of openings, facade design
elements and variation, fenestration, windows and openings compatibility of materials,.
Site plan design elements which that will be considered in the determination as to
whether site plan design is superior include quantity, quality, variation, compatibility and
size of plant materials, landscape berms and screening walls. Also considered will be the
overall harmony and unity order, symmetry and proportion of the various elements within
the site and also within the larger context of the area or corridor.
b. The height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials, colors, textures, major
divisions, and proportions of a new or remodeled building shall be compatible with that
of other buildings on the site and on adjacent sites.
c. Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall
height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at
the 2:1 ratio shall be two feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be
increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to three feet. The
unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the
building wall deviations is increased to four feet. The building wall deviations must
extend from the grade to the roof, or top of the parapet.
d. No building may display more than five percent of any elevation surface in bright, pure
accent colors.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 9
e. Design review shall be done by the zoning administrator or the zoning administrator's
designee, except in cases where a conditional use permit or planned unit development
process is required, in which case the design review shall be done by the planning
coordinator. The staff decision is subject to review by the city council.
e. The development must locate the noise-producing portions of the development, such as
loading docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent residential areas.
e. Generally, buildings of lower height, lesser bulk, pitched or gabled roofs, variations in
facade, and numerous fenestrations and openings will be considered of higher quality.
Generally, site plans with increased amount, variation and size of landscape materials and
higher landscape berms and screening walls will be considered of higher quality.
f. All exterior finishes for one- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures shall be
installed within one year from the issuance of the building permit.
a. g. All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other
buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto
shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50
percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. Subsection (b)(13) of This section will
not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, or as approved for buildings
covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces
and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and
possible.
(62) Building Materials. Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be subject to the following
regulations:
a. Classes of materials. For the purpose of this subsection (b)(61), mMaterials shall be
divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows:
1. Class I. Brick, marble, granite or other natural stone, textured cement stucco,
copper, porcelain and glass are class I exterior building materials on buildings
other than those used as dwellings which contain four or fewer dwelling units.
Wood, or vinyl siding, fiber-reinforced cement board and prefinished metal are
class I materials on residential buildings containing four or fewer dwelling units
in addition to the other class I materials listed in this subsection. Wood is a class
I material on park buildings under 3,000 square feet. If a minimum of two other
Class I materials are in use, clapboard and shake style fiber-reinforced cement
board may be used for a maximum of 10 percent of Class I materials on
residential buildings with more than four (4) units.
2. Class II. Exposed aggregate concrete panels, burnished concrete block, integral
colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block, cast-in-place
concrete, artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit), artificial stone, fiber-reinforced
cement board siding, and prefinished metal.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 10
3. Class III. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored),
unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels, and unfinished or
surface painted metal.
b. Minimum class I materials. At least 60 percent of each building face visible from off the
site must be of class I materials except as permitted by subsection (b)(6)c. of this section.
Not more than ten 10 percent of each building face visible from off the site may be of
class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the site may be constructed
of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if the structure otherwise conforms
to all city ordinances. The mixture of building materials must be compatible and
integrated.
c. Buildings in I-G and I-P districts.
1. Not on major streets and not near residential. For buildings in the I-G and I-P
districts which are not located on a principal arterial, minor arterial, major
collector, or adjacent to or across from any residentially zoned property, class I
materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the
remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as
certified by the architect or manufacturer.
2. On major streets or near residential. For building walls in the I-G and I-P
districts facing on a principal arterial, minor arterial or major collector, or
adjacent to or across from any residentially-zoned property, class I materials may
be reduced to a minimum orof 25 percent provided that the remaining materials
are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as certified by the
architect or manufacturer and that the architectural design and site plan are
superior quality as determined by the zoning administrator. The architecture and
site plan shall meet the following minimum criteria to be considered superior
quality:
i. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
ii. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20 percent or
the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to
3 1/2 caliper inches.
iii. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows or
glass spandrels.
(8) The site lighting shall provide adequate light for the safety and welfare of persons using the site
but shall not present a nuisance or hazard. Site lighting shall comply with the regulations of
section 36-363.
(9) For projects within all use districts where the lot area exceeds 50,000 square feet, at least one
percent of the lot area shall be devoted to pedestrian use such as plazas or walks.
(103) Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors,
textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character,
including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, exterior
alterations, and new accessory buildings shall conform to address and respect the original
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 11
architectural design and general appearance of the principal buildings on the site and shall
comply with the requirements of this section.
(4) Site design.
a. All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other
buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall
be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of
another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
for more than 60 days of the year. Subsection (b)(13) of this section will not prohibit
shading of buildings in an industrial use district, or as approved for buildings covered by
the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor
employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible.
b. Open lot area. For projects within all use districts where the lot area exceeds 50,000 square
feet, at least one percent of the lot area shall be devoted to pedestrian use such as plazas or
walks.
(4) Screening.
a. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following
methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible within 400 feet
from property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections 1 and 2 shall be used.
1. A parapet wall.
2. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop
equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building.
3. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is
most effective.
b. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground
tanks); refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary
equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing
a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats
shall not be accepted as screening.
c. All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter.
(115) Parking ramps. All new parking ramps constructed after the adoption of the ordinance from
which this section is derived shall meet the following design standards:
a. Parking ramp facades which that are visible from off the site shall display an integration
of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors
with the principal building.
b. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 12
c. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or recreational trail,
the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface
materials as for buildings.
(12) The relationship of the building to the site and adjacent property, including site access and
pedestrian movement, shall be complementary.
(13) All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings.
All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so
that the structure does not cast a shadow which covers more than 50 percent of another building
wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days
of the year. Subsection (b)(13) of this section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an
industrial use district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special
Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized
to the extent reasonable and possible. (Ord. No. 2262-03, 12-15-03)
(6) Awnings and canopies.
a. Awnings and Canopies.
1. Construction. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an
awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the awning
does not block any required exit.
2. Projection. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend up to two
feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally.
3. Clearance. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight feet of
clearance or any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over nay driveway or
roadway.
4. Supports. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of-way or
easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer.
b. Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any awning or
canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement shall be issued by
the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy that extends into, upon or
over any street or alley right-of-way, park or other public property. The encroachment
agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner of the awning or canopy liable to
the city for any damage which may result to any person or property by reason of such
encroachment or the removal of such encroachment. Additional conditions may be
imposed on encroachment permits to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to
protect nearby property owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests
as determined by the city engineer.
c. Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to the
installation of an awning or canopy.
1. Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building permit
and encroachment agreement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 13
2. Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations.
3. Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed.
d. Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be structurally safe,
shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with the design thereof and
repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city engineer or building official by and at
the expense of the person having ownership or control of the building from which they
project.
e. Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which projects into,
upon, over or under any public property shall upon being ordered to do so by the city
engineer remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and shall restore the right-of-
way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of the right-of-way will be at the
sole expense of the property owner. The city may, upon failure of the property owner to
remove the encroachment as ordered, remove the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of
removing such encroachment incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the
property as a special assessment.
(14c) Appeal. In any instance where the zoning administrator denies a permit or a request for
preliminary approval of building materials or building design, the applicant may submit an
appeal to the interpretation, based upon the plans and other papers on file in the office of the
zoning administrator, to the city council without payment of additional filing fees of any kind.
ARTICLE VI. NONCONFORMITIES
Sec. 36-401. Scope of article.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to permit a violation of any section of this chapter or the
continuation of any unsafe or unsanitary condition.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.0)
Sec. 36-402. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to provide for the continuation and eventual elimination of all
nonconforming uses and certain other nonconformities and other instances of nonconformance by:
(1) Recognizing certain developmentsnonconformities which lawfully existed prior to the effective
date of the ordinance from which this article is derived.
(2) Prohibiting the enlargement, intensification, expansion, rebuilding or extension of
nonconformities.
(3) Providing criteria which provide for the reconstruction of nonconforming uses which are
damaged by fire or other natural disaster.
(4) Encouraging the elimination of nonconformities or minimizing their impact on adjacent
properties.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 14
(5) Requiring certain nonconformities and other instances of nonconformance in certain situations to
either comply with this chapter or terminate.
(6) Providing an equitable system for the termination of certain nonconformities.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.1)
Sec. 36-403. 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:
Legal nonconforming means anything lawfully existing before the enactment of the ordinance
from which this chapter is derived which does not conform to a condition or provision of this chapter,
including but not limited to buildings and other structures, off-street parking, outdoor sales and storage,
land use, signs, outdoor lighting, subdivided parcels of land and developments. Nonconforming and
nonconformity mean any development, structure, sign, site lighting, off-street parking lot, bufferyard, land
use, or parcelNonconformity means any use, lot, or structure which was legally constructed or established
prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment
to it, which would not be permitted by or is not in full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Nonconforming bufferyards means bufferyards which do not conform to the distance, height,
screening, density, material or planting requirements of this chapter.
Nonconforming buildings means buildings which do not conform to the dimensional standards or
densities of the district in which they are located.
Nonconforming land use not permitted in the city means a land use which is not listed as
permitted, permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use permit in any district in the city.
Nonconforming land use not permitted in a district means a land use which is not listed as
permitted, permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use permit in the district in which it
is located.
Nonconforming land use with no conditional use permit means a land use which requires a
conditional use permit in the district in which it is located for which a valid conditional use permit has not
been issued.
Nonconforming lighting means outdoor site lighting which does not conform to the intensity or
source visibility requirements of this chapter. Nonconforming lot means a lot of record which does not
conform to the width, lot area, or other dimensional requirements of the district in which it is located.
Nonconforming signs means signs which do not conform to the requirementsstructure is any
structure which was legally constructed prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this
chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment to it, which would not be permitted by or is not in full
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Nonconforming use means any use which was legally established prior to the effective date of the
ordinance from which this chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment to it, which would not be
permitted by or is not in full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 15
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.2)
Structure for purposes of this article means a permanent building having a roof which may
provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or personal property.
Cross reference(s)--Definitions generally, § 1-2.
Use for purposes of this article means the overall general purpose or activity for which a premises
is generally designed, arranged or intended for which it is or may be occupied or maintained.
Sec. 36-404. General requirements.
A legal nonconformity existing at the time of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived
may be continued except as provided in this article.
(1) Right to continue. A legalExcept for a Sexually Oriented Business as defined in the City Code, a
nonconformity may be continued at the size andin the manner of operation existing at the time of
adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, except as provided in this
articlesubject to the provisions of this Article.
(2) Subject to general requirements of this chapter. Subject to its right to continue, a property having
a nonconformity is subject to all provisions of this chapter and future amendments thereto.
(3) Expansion prohibited. A nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in
any manner or dimension except to comply with the provisions of this chapter.(3) Intensification
prohibited. A nonconforming land use shall not be intensified in. Expansion includes the
intensification of the character or operation. Intensification of a nonconformity. Expansion shall
include, but not be limited to, increased hours of operation, expansion of the use to a portion of
the property not previously used, reducing the size of the parcel containing the nonconforming
usenonconformity by subdivision or administrative lot line adjustment, expansion of a parking
area and increased number of employees.
(4) Damaged or destroyed structures. If the cost to repair aany nonconformity involving a damaged
structure is more than 60is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent
of the assessor'sits assessed market value of the structure at the time of the damage, the structure
shall be removed or made to conform with this chapter within 12 months of the occurrence of the
damage., and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is
damaged, the building official may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order
to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. If the building permit has not been
applied for within one year of the date of destruction, any right to continue the nonconformity is
terminated and any future use of the land must comply fully with this chapter.
(5) Termination of rights through discontinuation of the use. If a nonconformity is discontinued for a
period of more than one year, any right to continue the nonconformity is terminated and any
future use of the land must comply fully with this chapter.
(5) Reduction in nonconformity. Any nonconformity which is reduced in size, intensity or otherwise
becomes more conforming may not again expand or become less conforming. Removal of a
structure, relocation, reduction, or elimination of any site element, such as outdoor storage, is a
reduction in intensity.
Sec. 36-405. Special requirements.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 16
(6
(1) City approvals.
a. Condition for approval. The city may not issue a conditional use permit, Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), Planned Unit Development (PUD), or building permit for an addition
which increases the leasable floor area or density for any property which contains a
nonconformity unless the nonconformity is removed as a condition of the approvalthat is
not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Amendments to existing special
permits shall be administered in accordance with section 36-36(c)(4).
b. Exception. If a new use requiring a conditional use permitCUP, PUD or special permit
amendment is proposed for part of a multiple tenant building, and there are no exterior
modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would result in an increase
in floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, building height, density, or a decrease in
required yards, or other substantial change (other than property improvement to meet
building code requirements), then the city may issue a conditional use permitCUP, PUD
or special permit amendment provided the following standards are met:
1. The new use does not increase or intensify nonconformities on the
propertyinvolve an expansion of the nonconformity or otherwise increase the
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter.
2. Any nonconformitiesnonconformity or other items of noncompliance existing on
the site shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other
provisions of this chapter to the extent reasonable and possible, except that
greater or complete compliance will not be required with the following
provisions of this chapter:
i. Lot area.
ii. Lot width.
iii. Required yards.
iv. Building height
v. Floor area ratio.
vi. Ground floor area ratio.
vii. Density.
viii. Usable open space.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-2; Ord. No. 2155-00, 2-7-2000; Ord. No. 2163-00, 3-20-2000; Ord. No. 2188-01, 2-5-
2001)
Sec. 36-405. Special requirements.
(a) Nonconforming land use.
(1) Termination of rights through discontinuation of the use. If a legal nonconforming land use
terminates operations or use for a period of time exceeding one year or if the land or building is
vacant for a period of time exceeding one year, the city may infer an intent to abandon the use
and the nonconforming rights granted by this section are terminated and any future use of the land
must comply fully with this chapter. As evidence of an intent to discontinue or abandon the
operation or use, the city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 17
a. Filing of a petition for tax abatement.
b. Notice of tax forfeiture.
c. Disconnection of utilities.
d. Boarding up and securing of building.
e. Voluntary destruction of the building or property.
f. Voluntary change to a conforming land use.
g. Unpermitted and illegal change from one nonconforming land use to another.
h. Change in business practices.
i. Lease or conveyance of property for a different use, including sublease of the premises
for another nonconforming use or the same use conducted by another tenant.
j. Any other factors from which an intent to discontinue or abandon may be reasonably
inferred.
(2) Change in tenant or ownership. Any change of a tenant or in the ownership of any land which is
classified as a legal nonconforming land use shall require the new tenant or owner to obtain a
certificate of occupancy before the nonconforming use may be continued.(3) Permitted
construction. Construction is permitted on a lot under the following circumstances:
a. Where a legal nonconforming land use exists and where the construction is determined
by the director of inspections to be necessary to bring the building into compliance with
applicable health and safety codes.
a. The repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement of any nonconformity,
but not including expansion, except that such construction is prohibited in floodplain
areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance
Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of construction to
flood flows in the floodway.
b. Where the constructionConstruction which would allow additions and alterations to
buildings containing legal nonconforming residentialdwelling units provided they
complycomplying with the following conditions:
1. The construction will not result in an increase in the number of dwelling units.;
and
2. The building or parcel is not located in an area which the council has designated
as a high priority for redevelopment according to an adopted redevelopment
strategy or plan. For the purpose of this section, a redevelopment strategy or plan
shall be defined as a document and/or process which specifically outlines the area
to be redeveloped and may include timelines and/or action steps to be taken, or
which are being taken, to achieve the redevelopment. These action steps may
include, but are not limited to, solicitation of developers, the purchase of
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 18
property, environmental testing or remediation, demolition of structures and
other similar activities.
(3) Change in tenant or ownership. Any change of a tenant or in the ownership of any land which is
classified as a nonconforming use shall require the new tenant or owner to obtain a certificate of
occupancy or Registration of Land Use before the nonconforming use may be continued.
(4) Reduction in intensityChange to less intense use. A nonconforming land use may be changed to a
less intense nonconforming land use subject to approval by the zoning administrator. The
property owner or tenant has the burden of providing evidence that the proposed land use is less
intense than the existing nonconforming land use. The zoning administrator shall consider the
evidence provided by the property owner or tenant in evaluating relative intensities including, but
not limited to, each of the following factors:
a. Hours of operation.
b. Signage.
c. Off-street parking and loading.
d. Nature of business operations.
e. Type of equipment or machinery.
f. Outdoor storage.
g. Number of employees.
h. Aesthetic impacts on surrounding property.
i. Property values.
The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed in the manner set forth in section 36-
31.
(b) Nonconforming structures. In the following cases, construction is permitted on or within a
legal nonconforming structure:
(1) Construction which is determined by the building official to be necessary to bring the
building into compliance with applicable health and safety codes.
(2) Construction which does not extend, expand or intensify the nonconformity.
(5) Reduction in nonconformity. Any nonconformity which is reduced in size, intensity or otherwise
becomes more conforming may not again expand or become less conforming.
(3) Routine maintenance and nonstructural alterations and repairs that do not extend the useful
economic life of the structure.(c6) Nonconformity as a result of government action.
(1) If a governmental body takes land by exercise of its right of eminent domain and by that
taking creates a parcel which does not conform to the width, area, or yard requirements of
this chapter, the nonconforming parcel shall become a legal non-conformity and may be
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 19
used thereafter only by complying with the provisions of this section, however, such a
legal nonconformity is exempt from the amortization provisions as contained in section
36-406. The same nonconforming status of the nonconforming parcel will result if the
governmental body acquired the land by negotiation rather than by condemnation.(2)
If the owner of a property which becomes a legal nonconformity or nonconforming lot as
the result of a governmental takingacquisition by condemnation or negotiation applies for
a variance to reinstateeliminate the legalnonconforming status toof the property, the
governmental takingacquisition shall constitute a hardship for the purpose of the
variance.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-3; Ord. No. 2212-01, § 2, 10-3-2001)
Sec. 36-406. Amortization of certain uses.
(a) Purpose. St. Louis Park is a fully developed city and as such, there are certain uses which are no
longer compatible with the nature of the community. In general, these uses tend to create noise, traffic and
dust problems and have a negative impact on property values and aesthetics due to the fact they are
incompatible with the surrounding area. It is the intent of the city to gradually eliminate those uses which,
because of their location or manner of operation, create a negative impact on the health and welfare of the
neighborhood in which they exist. To the extent practical and consistent with good land use planning and
zoning principles, the city has made every effort to accommodate permitting uses in districts where they
are less likely to cause negative impact. In reaching its conclusion to provide for the gradual elimination
of all nonconforming uses not permitted in any zoning district in the city, the city council has weighed the
interests of the individual property owners who will be required to gradually terminate their
nonconforming use and the health, welfare and safety of the community generally and the surrounding
neighborhoods specifically.
(b) Registration of land uses required. All owners of property that contain a use not permitted
in any zoning district shall register their nonconforming use with the city, within one year from the
effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Property owners are responsible for
determining the applicability of this provision to their property.
(1) Notice. The city will provide property owners of nonconforming uses subject to the provisions of
this section with written notice that the property must be registered. The city shall also have
notice of the registration requirement published in the city's official newspaper within 60 days of
the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. The failure of the city to
provide a property owner with written notice shall not absolve the property owners from the
responsibility for registering their property, nor shall it extend the length of the registration
period.
(2) Registration process. The property owner shall file a registration application with the zoning
administrator on a form provided by the city and accompanied by a fee to be determined by the
city council. The registration application shall require the property owner to submit pertinent
information including, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Name, address and telephone number of the legal owner of the property;
b. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of any tenants or lessees, along with a copy of
lease agreements;
c. Legal description of the property;
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 20
d. Description of the type and nature of the nonconforming use, including a description of
the structures and improvements on the property, manner of operation, hours of
operation, size of structure, type of construction, age of structure and location of
structures on the property;
e. Description of surrounding neighborhood including street patterns and access;
f. Information relating to the length of time the nonconforming use has been in existence;
g. Description of land use within 350 feet of the property;
h. Evidence of the original cost of the property and structures and any subsequent
improvements to the structures;
i. A current appraisal of the value of the property and structures;
j. A description of the depreciation method applied to the property for income tax purposes,
based on generally recognized accounting principles applicable at the time the property
was originally acquired by the owner;
k. The assessed value of the property for property tax purposes;
l. Copies of income tax and financial statements for the past five years;
m. Any additional information the property owner may want to provide that may affect the
length of the amortization period.
(3) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to bars which existed as a principal use
upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived.
(c) Failure to register. Failure to register a nonconforming use within one year from the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall require the owner or tenant to terminate the
nonconforming use within six months from the end of the registration period. The city may take any and
all action permitted by law to require the termination of the nonconforming use, including but not limited
to securing and boarding the property containing the nonconforming use.
(d) Determination of amortization period. Within 90 days from the time the zoning
administrator receives a complete registration application, the city shall advise the property owner in
writing of the length of the amortization period along with the factors used by the city to determine the
amortization period.
(1) Meeting with property owner. Within 15 days of receiving a registration application, the zoning
administrator shall meet with the property owner to review the registration application and
whether it is complete. The city shall not undertake an analysis of the registration application
until it is complete.
(2) Factors in determining the length of the amortization period. The zoning administrator shall
consider, at a minimum, the following factors in determining the length of the amortization
period:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 21
a. Information relating to the structure located on the property;
b. Nature of the use;
c. Location of the property in relation to surrounding uses;
d. Description of the character of and uses in the surrounding neighborhood;
e. Cost of the property and improvements to the property;
f. Benefit to the public by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use;
g. Burden on the property owner by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use;
h. The length of time the use has been in existence and the length of time the use has been
nonconforming.
(3) Staff report recommending amortization period. The zoning administrator shall prepare a written
report detailing the factors considered in establishing the length of the amortization period. The
report shall contain a recommendation to the city council on the length of the amortization period.
(4) City council to establish amortization period. The city council shall by ordinance amend the
ordinance from which this chapter is derived to establish an amortization period for individual
land uses not permitted in the city. The amortization period shall commence upon publication of
the ordinance establishing the length of the amortization period.
(e) Nonconforming signs. All nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance with this
chapter or removed within the time established in section 36-362.(f7) Nonconforming parking.
(1)a. Any land use on any property which contains a nonconforming parking lot or paved area
shall not be expanded or intensified unless the property is brought into compliance with
the standards contained in section 36-361(b). However, all nonconforming parking lots
and paved areas must comply with section 36-361(b) on or before October 31, 1997. In
addition to the other penalties provided by law, the city may withhold a certificate of
occupancy for any property not in compliance with this section.
(2) b. Any land use which does not provide the number of parking spaces required by section 36-
361(c) may remain as a nonconformity. However, the land use may not be expanded or
intensified unless it provides the parking spaces required under this chapter for the
expansion or intensification. A use will be considered to be expanded or intensified if any
of the following occur:
a. The floor area is increased.b. The parking requirement is increased.
c. The building bulk is increased.
d. A building addition is constructed.(3) Land usesUses with nonconforming parking in
terms of numbers of stalls need not provide additional parking to bring the use into
compliance if such parking would occupy required yards or bufferyards.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 22
(g8) Nonconforming bufferyards. If buildings were existing on a parcel of land on the effective date
of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived which, due to their location, make
construction of the required bufferyards impossible, the following reductions in the bufferyard
requirements may be made if the required bufferyard is:
(1)a. A bufferyard B and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, a bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using 100 percent of the
required plant units.
(2)b. Either A or B and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F1 fence and 50
percent of the plant units required for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard shall be installed.
(3)c. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten feet,
the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F2 fence plus 50 plant
units for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard.
(4)d. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F4 fence shall
be installed plus 25 plant units for each 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
(5)e. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least ten feet but less than 15 feet,
the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using a BW1 berm wall plus 75
plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
(6)f. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten feet,
the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall and 50 plant
units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
(7)g. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, the bufferyard shall
be installed on the available width using an F6 wall plus 25 plant units per 100 linear feet
of required bufferyard.
(h) Nonconforming lighting. All site lighting which exceeds the maximum allowable light levels
at the property line or where the direct light source is visible from off the site must be modified to comply
with section 36-363 or removed from the site within one year of the effective date of the ordinance from
which this chapter is derived.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-4)
Sec. 36-407. Amortization of Apple Valley Red-E-Mix.
The reasonable amortization period applicable to the ready-mix facility owned and operated by
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix at 3270 Gorham Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, shall be two years,
commencing upon publication of this ordinance. At the conclusion of the two-year amortization period,
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix's nonconforming ready-mix use shall terminate and cease to operate. In
accordance with M.S.A. § 462-362 and section 36-37(a), this section shall be enforceable by mandamus,
injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-4.1)
Sec. 36-408. Appeals.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 23
With the exception of section 36-405(a)(4), the provisions of sections 36-402 through 36-406 are
not subject to appeal to the city council.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-5.0)
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 06-52-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.
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 24
EXCERPTS OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 16, 2006 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells
3. Hearings:
B. Zoning Ordinance amendments relating to awnings and canopies; building
materials; height in the Mixed Use District; signs; and non-conformities
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 06-52-ZA
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. Ms. McMonigal discussed the awnings and
canopies amendment. She discussed the proposed height limit in the M-X zoning
district.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she thought she had recommended under 8 stories
at a study session. She asked how staff arrived at an 8 story maximum.
Ms. McMonigal responded that 8 stories was chosen as a benchmark. She added that
there have been requests for 8 stories. She continued by saying there is very little M-X
zoning in the City.
Ms. McMonigal discussed proposed changes to sign regulations, building materials and
non-conformities.
Commissioner Robertson said that the Commission had previously discussed concerns
about smooth hardiboard and had indicated an interest in textured hardiboard.
Ms. McMonigal said that textured hardiboard can be added to the amendment.
Ms. McMonigal said that the attorney drafted proposed changes to the non-conformities
section to reflect changes to State law. She noted that in the draft provided, amortization
regulations should be reinstated into the code, and not deleted as is shown.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Pat Skinner, 3336 Huntington Avenue, said he thought setting an arbitrary height is a
disservice to any one property. He said he thinks it should be done at the Comprehensive
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 25
Plan level. He suggested that any height limit restrictions should be thought out on a
micro level.
Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:30 p.m.
In response to Chair Carper’s question about proposals for more than 8 stories, Ms.
McMonigal answered that could be accomplished through the Planned Unit Development
process.
Julie Williams, 3308 Huntington Avenue, said she is concerned that the amendment is
only relevant to the Excelsior and France property at the Al’s Bar site. Ms. Williams said
she agrees with Mr. Skinner’s comments.
Ms. McMonigal said it wouldn’t affect that many sites, but some sites could be rezoned.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Timian and Ms. McMonigal discussed neighborhood plans included in the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Timian asked how much weight the neighborhood
plans carry. Ms. McMonigal said the plans do provide a guide and are part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said a height limit is positive but she is concerned
about M-X districts that back up onto single family homes. She would like to table the
M-X amendment for further study and for discussion with the city attorney. Ms.
McMonigal said M-X requirements can be reviewed in greater detail at a future study
session.
Commissioner Robertson said he agrees with Commissioner Johnston-Madison. He said
it seems arbitrary to pick the 8-story level but added that there are setbacks relative to
height. He said height is not a stand alone element. Parking, setbacks and height are all
factors for M-X sites. He said he is not opposed to tabling this item for further study.
Commissioner Robertson said under architectural design, he recommends not using the
description “compatibility of materials, colors” because it is not an architectural element.
Commissioner Robertson said he would like more discussion and wordsmithing on
building design to occur.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of proposed
amendments for awnings, signs and non-conformities and to table for further discussion
amendments regarding building materials and height in the M-X zoning district.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there would be a new public hearing for the
tabled items. Commissioner Morris suggested publishing a meeting notice for those
items that are being tabled.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if neighborhoods affected by changes to the M-X
district could be notified of the next consideration of these items by the Commission.
Ms. McMonigal responded yes, depending on the outcome of the discussion.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 101606 - 8b - Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building Materials And
Non-Conformities
Page 26
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 20, 2006 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl
Robertson
Robert Kramer arrived at 6:04, Jerry Timian arrived at 6:18 and
left at 8:05
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Adam Fulton, Kathy Larsen and
Nancy Sells
4. Other Business
B. Zoning Ordinance amendments related to building materials
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 06-52-ZA
Ms. McMonigal reviewed proposed changes.
Commissioner Robertson requested the following revision on page 3 of the staff report:
under (1) Building Design, b., the language shall be compatible should be replaced with
the words address and respect. He thinks staff has done a good job with the proposed
amendment.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of proposed ordinance
changes, including his recommended change. Commissioner Johnston-Madison
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.